Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 5th April for the Easter Recess—met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of St. Marylebone, in the room of the right hon. Sir Douglas M'Garel Hogg, K.C., now Baron Hailsham (Lord Chancellor of Great Britain).—[Commander Byres Monsell.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bromborough Dock Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Oxford Corporation (Water, &c.) Bill, Read the Third time, and passed.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

London County Council (Tramway Subway and Improvements) Bill, Middlesex and Surrey (Thames Bridges, &c.) Bill,

Weaver Navigation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bournemouth-Swanage Motor Road and Ferry Bill [Lords],

Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords],

Plympton St. Mary Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Warwick Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIFEBOATS (FLEMING GEAR).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what tests his Department has made of the Fleming lifeboat and what were the conclusions reached; whether he has sanctioned its installation in place of oared lifeboats; and, if so, how far it has been adopted?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Seating, manœuvring and speed tests of lifeboats fitted with Fleming propelling gear have been made by Board of Trade surveyors, and the Board of Trade have approved it as a satisfactory means of propulsion for ships' lifeboats, subject to the conditions that additional buoyancy is fitted to compensate for the weight of the gear and that half the number of oars required in ordinary lifeboats are carried. Lifeboats fitted with this gear are carried on 35 vessels in lieu of oared and motor lifeboats.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the desirability of the preparation of a summarised edition of the fourth volume of the Reports of the Departmental Committee on Trade and Industry which could be made available for the public at a nominal price; and if he will arrange for the separate publication at a small price of the chapter dealing with costs of industrial production and distribution?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The price of this volume is already a low one, and I doubt whether it would be well to attempt to prepare any summary other than the existing introduction to the volume. The question of publishing separately individual chapters hardly appears to arise at present.

Mr. HANNON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this chapter referred to is the clearest statement we have yet had of the cost of production and distribution and that it is very important for the public to have it in some simple form?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The whole volume only costs 3s. 6d., and probably those interested will require the whole volume.

IRON AND STEEL TRADES.

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the President of Board of Trade whether he has given consideration to the figures published in the Board of Trade Journal of 29th March, showing the production of pig-iron in the United Kingdom and certain foreign countries; whether the low average output per furnace in blast in the United Kingdom, as compared with France, Belgium and Germany, is due to higher cost of production; and if he contemplates any action which may improve the outlook of the iron and steel trade in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I understand that the lower average output per furnace in blast in the United Kingdom is due to the fact that the furnaces now working here are, on the average, smaller than those working on the Continent.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does that mean that the low iron ore used in this country makes all the difference?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think there are smaller furnaces in this country because we turn out a number of grades of pig iron to meet a number of orders of different kinds. I think that really accounts for the difference between the comparatively small furnaces here and the larger furnaces abroad.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that if you want to get the proper position you have to find out the class of coal, the class of coke, the class of iron ore and the class of limestone?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not sure that that is necessary in order to find out the position in different countries. I do not think it would be necessary.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Are we to believe that the men working in the blast furnaces in France, Belgium and Germany are superior workmen to those in this country?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, there would be no ground for any such suggestion or reflection.

ARTIFICIAL SILK INDUSTRY.

Mr. KELLY: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of companies in the artificial silk industry which have made use of the Trade Facilities Acts, and to what extent?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): One such guarantee has been given in respect of a loan of £85,000. Particulars of this guarantee were given in House of Commons Paper 14 of 1926.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private Albert Skinner, No. 3950112, the Welch Regiment, was discharged, totally blind, from the Army in January, 1926; that the cause of the blindness has not been definitely diagnosed, but that it followed typhoid fever contracted on His Majesty's service in India; that a surgeon of the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital considers the blindness to be attributable to or aggravated by service abroad; that this soldier has made serious complaints of his treatment in hospital in India, and
that his family was not informed of his blindness until his brother called at the hospital at Southampton; that Private Skinner is receiving no pension or treatment; that institutions for the training of the blind have refused to assist him; and whether, in view of the hardship in this case, he will reconsider the possibility of granting a further medical board, or a pension, or training in another occupation for this soldier?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The hon. and gallant Member has already communicated with me in writing about this ex-soldier's case, and I have nothing to add to the answer which I sent to the hon. and gallant Member on 28th May, 1927.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the questions I put here are different from those I addressed to him in writing, and that since he replied to me this ex-soldier has been discharged from the institution that was training him, and in those circumstances will he take any further action?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I wish I could, but there is no useful action that I can take. I do not think this question raises anything that was not dealt with in the letter. It was a three-page letter, and I went very carefully into the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED MINES, SOUTH WALES.

Sir R. THOMAS: 8.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will give a list of the pits in the South Wales coalfield at which work has totally ceased, naming their location and the collieries to which they belong; and how many and which of the pits are considered to be permanently uneconomic?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Commodore Douglas King): I will send to the hon. Member a list of the pits closed in South Wales, but I regret I am unable to give the information asked for in the last part of the question.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman now in a position to
give the figures for Scotland, which he was unable to give before the Adjournment?

Commodore KING: Not without notice.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that there are no means of ascertaining which pits have gone out of production because they are not economic?

Commodore KING: Those that are abandoned are reported each week to the Mines Department.

Mr. KELLY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman make inquiries as to which of the pits are permanently uneconomic?

Commodore KING: There are nearly 200 pits, and the work of finding out which are permanently closed would be too great.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that it is very important to ascertain this?

Commodore KING: It depends on the state of the market whether pits will be economic or not.

Mr. PALING: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister, in passing the Eight Hours Act, suggested that it was put in operation to prevent the going out of production of pits, and, in view of that fact, is it not necessary that we should have this knowledge?

Commodore KING: I cannot agree that he said that.

Mr. PALING: The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself gave that answer to a question a few days ago.

Mr. KELLY: Are the hon. and gallant Gentleman's officers still investigating and preparing a catalogue of these mines?

Commodore KING: Yes, my Department is constantly keeping in touch and making out a catalogue of abandoned mines, but abandoned mines only.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that more mines have gone out of action since the Eight Hours Act than in the same length of period before the passing of that Act?

SUBSIDENCE

Mr. BARKER: 9.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware of the damage to house property and other property in Abertillery and other mining areas caused by mining subsidence; and, in view of the publication of the Report last year of the Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence, will he bring in legislation at the earliest date to deal with this grievance?

Commodore KING: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) on 3rd April, to which I can add nothing.

Mr. BARKER: Are the Government going to take action on the question, in view of the fact that a Report has been given by the Committee that has been investigating it?

Commodore KING: If the hon. Member refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see the reply.

Year ended 31st March.
Number of Wage-earners employed at Coal Mines in Scotland at 31st March.
Output of Coal in Scotland.
Quantity of Coal exported from Scottish Ports.







Tons.
Tons.


1924
…
…
…
141,900
38,365,700
10,865,200


1925
…
…
…
131,700
35,338,200
7,951,300


1926
…
…
…
126,500
33,321,800
7,038,900


1927*
…
…
…
111,400
16,550,300
2,474,800


1928
…
…
…
102,500
34,531,900
6,131,500


* Work at coal mines was reduced by a protracted dispute and the output and exports of coal were consequently affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAHABI RAIDS, IRAQ (IBN SAUD).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 14.
asked the Secretary for State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a further statement on the political and military situation on the borders of Arabia; whether any conversations have yet taken place between Sir Gilbert Clayton and King Ibn Saud of the Hejaz and Nejd; and, if so, with what result.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): No further raids by Akhwan tribesmen have taken place since the raid on 19th February, full details of which were given to the House. No conversations have yet taken place between Sir Gilbert Clayton and

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 10
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of persons employed in and about coal mines in Scotland at 31st March last; and the numbers so employed at 31st March in the years 1924, 1925; 1926, and 1927;
(2) the total output of coal from coalfields in Scotland for the 12 months ending 31st March last, with corresponding figures for the years 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927, respectively;
(3) the quantity of coal exported to foreign markets from the Scottish coalfields for the 12 months ending 31st March in the years 1924, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928, respectively?

Commodore KING: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statistical statement answering these questions.

Following is the statement:

King Ibn Saud, but it hoped that a meeting will take place towards the end of April at Jeddah.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOLOMON ISLANDS (PRISONERS).

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of prisoners who were affected by dysentery in the Sinarango prison camp, Malaita, while awaiting trial for the murders that occurred last October; and the number of deaths which occurred?

Mr. AMERY: 71 cases of dysentery have occurred among the prisoners and there have been eight deaths. Seven cases were still under treatment on 2nd April.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that this very large number of cases is due to the very bad sanitary arrangements?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware of that fact. I am sure that everything will have been done.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCHISE BILL (SOUTHWARK).

Mr. DAY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the approximate number of women voters who will be added to the register by the new Franchise Bill in the Central Division of the borough of Southwark?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not yet in a position to give this information, but he hopes to publish a table with approximate estimates very shortly.

Mr. DAY: When will the table be published?

Sir V. HENDERSON: If the hon. Member had listened to my reply, he would have heard me say, "Very shortly."

Oral Answers to Questions — H.M.S. "ROYAL OAK."

ADMIRALTY DECISION.

Commander BELLAIRS: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Board will consider requiring 24 hours' notice of courts of inquiry being given to any man whose career may be gravely affected; and whether it is proposed to place witnesses at courts of inquiry on oath in the way practised at military courts of inquiry?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): As my honourable and gallant Friend is aware, Naval Courts of Inquiry are not judicial bodies, and in view of their wide objects as set forth in the King's Regulations it is considered that their usefulness could be reduced rather than increased by applying the restrictions proper to a Court of Law. My honourable and gallant Friend is incorrect in stating that it is the practice at Military Courts of Inquiry, other than those held on recovered prisoners of war or as to illegal absence
of soldiers, to place witnesses on oath. The convening authority is legally empowered to order sworn evidence to be taken, but the power is only used in exceptional circumstances. The question of obtaining statutory authority for conferring the same power on the authority convening a Naval Court of Inquiry has often been considered, but no sufficient reason for changing the existing law has been found.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commander Daniel stated in evidence that he had only 10 minutes' time in which to collect his evidence and that that was responsible for his reading of portions of Captain Dewar's letter in the ward room which led to a very serious state of affairs?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware of that, but I am going to make a statement on the whole subject later on.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make with reference to the courts-martial on Captain Dewar, C.B.E., and Commander Daniel, D.S.O., late of His Majesty's Ship "Royal Oak"; and whether these officers have received other appointments?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Board of Admiralty have now had an opportunity of reviewing the Proceedings of the Courts-Martial on Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel, at which Rear-Admiral Collard gave evidence. They have also received a letter from the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, fully explaining the events which led up to and resulted in the suspension from duty of these three officers.
At about 10.30 a.m. on Saturday the 10th March, the Vice-Admiral Commanding the First Battle Squadron brought to the Commander-in-Chief the letters from Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel which formed the subject of the charges at the Courts-Martial, and which he had received from Rear-Admiral Collard an hour previously. They had been left with Rear-Admiral Collard by Captain Dewar the previous afternoon.
The lack of time available for dealing with the situation was partly due to the fact that, though Commander Daniel was ordered to send in his reasons regarding
the incident on the 5th March, it was not until four days later that the letter from Captain Dewar, enclosing that from Commander Daniel, was given to Rear-Admiral Collard.
It was clear to the Commander-in-Chief from the terms of these letters, which alleged a state of indiscipline in the "Royal Oak," that an immediate inquiry was necessary. A very serious and difficult situation was thus created in view of the fact that the Fleet was due to sail at 4 p.m. on the next day, Sunday, for the most important exercises of the year.
The Commander-in-Chief immediately convened a Court of Inquiry, the members of which were three Flag Officers. It commenced its sitting at 1.30 p.m. on Saturday and sat continuously until 8 p.m., when the three Flag Officers, having arrived at their finding, at once reported the result verbally to the Commander-in-Chief, but all the shorthand evidence was not available for the Commander-in-Chief until about midday on Sunday. It was impossible to delay the departure of the Fleet beyond Monday morning, and immediate action was therefore necessary. The Commander-in-Chief considered it clearly undesirable that the "Royal Oak" should sail with the three officers on board, and, as has already been announced, he ordered the Rear-Admiral to strike his flag and superseded the other two officers.
In taking this action on his own responsibility, the Commander-in-Chief reported that he considered it impracticable to put into a telegraphic summary all the evidence, facts and considerations which guided him, that any abbreviated account would be liable to misinterpretation and would be insufficient to enable the Board to make a decision. In any case, such a telegraphic report, which must have consisted of several hundred groups of cypher, could not have been despatched by him before Sunday evening, and a reply could not possibly have been received before the departure of the Fleet at 6 a.m. on Monday. He therefore felt it to be his duty to take the responsibility on his own shoulders and to issue the orders he did, without submission of proposals to the Board.
Unavoidably, Commander-in-Chief's action gave the incident publicity at Malta, and statements gained currency which magnified the situation that had arisen in the "Royal Oak." The Board, however, consider that, in the peculiar circumstances existing at the moment, the action of the Commander-in-Chief was correct, the position in which he was placed being due to the time at which it had been thought fit to put forward the complaint and to the exaggerated picture presented of the state of discipline in the ship.
On this question of discipline, time was obviously required to check the real facts. The Commander-in-Chief reported on the 19th March that after a week's careful consideration and observation he believed that the impression conveyed by Captain Dewar and Commander Daniel as to the bad effect upon the discipline and moral of the ship caused by the incidents complained of was greatly exaggerated, and he has since reported that he is entirely satisfied that the discipline and moral are excellent.
It is also made clear by the evidence given at the courts-martial that these incidents were in no way indicative of any systematic want of consideration or habitual fault finding in the "Royal Oak" on the part of the Rear-Admiral but were simply isolated occurrences. The matters on which they arose should have been quite easily settled had there not been an unaccountable failure amongst these three officers of high rank to show the good temper and common sense normally found amongst all ranks and ratings.
The Board are of opinion that the initial blame for what has happened lies with Rear-Admiral Collard, who dealt with trivial causes for dissatisfaction in a manner unbecoming his position, and showed himself unfit for further high command. As already stated, he has been deprived of his command, and the Board with regret have now decided, in spite of his good services in the past, to place him on the Retired List under Order-in-Council of the 21st April, 1922, which authorises the Admiralty to retire officers of any rank in such cases.
The other two officers have been tried by Court-Martial, and in each case have been sentenced to be severely reprimanded and dismissed their ship. The
Board have decided to confirm the sentences, though they are of opinion that in Commander Daniel's case no offence was proved under the second charge based on Article 11 of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. The sentence inflicted by the Court in his case, however, was justified by his conviction on the other three charges on which he was tried.
As it has been suggested that the offences committed by these officers were more or less technical in character, the Board think it necessary to say that they have taken a grave view of their conduct. Commander Daniel, having been ordered to make a report to the Captain in writing on certain events connected with the departure of the Rear-Admiral from the ship on the 5th March, supplemented the paragraphs complying with that order by additional paragraphs partly containing unnecessary comment on the Rear-Admiral based on hearsay, and partly making criticisms of an improper nature. The Board are of opinion that an officer of his experience must have been well aware that the procedure for making complaints, which is a most important and essential safeguard, must not be used as a vehicle for using language subversive of discipline about the superior officer complained of. Captain Dewar, in a case in which he was intending to make complaints of his own, should have deterred his junior officer from going beyond the formal report of the facts which he had been ordered to prepare, or alternatively should have used his experience to advise his junior officer to put into a respectful Service form any complaint which he intended to forward. In fact, he did not discourage Commander Daniel in the course which he actually took, but accepted his report. The conduct of both officers was contrary to the traditions and best interests of the Service.
The Board by their confirmation of the Court-Martial sentences on these two officers have sufficiently marked their sense of disapproval of their conduct, and have therefore decided that these sentences shall not preclude them from further employment in due course when suitable vacancies occur.
Finally, although it is clear that in this case the officers concerned should,
from their position in the Service, have had no doubts as to the proper manner in which to bring forward complaints, the Board are making a careful review of the relevant Articles of the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions in order to ascertain whether there are any grounds for the suggestion that officers and men of less experience may be uncertain how to act if they have a complaint to bring against anyone of superior rank.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: When the First Lord speaks of "further employment," am I to understand that that means further employment at sea; and is he aware that in the case of an officer of the rank of Captain Dewar, unless he gets in his sea time, further promotion in the Service as an Admiral is denied him, and that it would, therefore, be possible for the Admiralty, while employing him on shore, to cut short his further career in a higher rank? May I be reassured on that point?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am quite aware of these circumstances, but I cannot give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an undertaking that he will be employed, because the number of vacancies is limited, and I must wait until a suitable one occurs. We never make it a practice in advance to undertake to give such employment.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the course which has always been taken in the case of previous Courts-Martial, and publish as a Blue Book the whole of the evidence, and include in the Blue Book the Report of the Commander-in-Chief, which he has paraphrased in stating it to the House?

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that any good can possibly be done by publishing the whole of the evidence? Is it not a great deal better that we should leave the matter where it is, relying upon the sympathy which has been expressed by my right hon. Friend, and at the same time adding the hope that it will be in the very near future that these two officers will regain employment?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am heartily in agreement with what my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir F. Hall) has said. With regard to publishing the whole of the proceedings of the Courts-Martial, I must
say, without giving a definite refusal, that I see no great advantage to be gained by doing it. There are very few people who, like myself, have read through the whole of the evidence of the Courts-Martial, five hundred or so pages of folios, closely typewritten, and I am sure that publishing the whole of it would be a very extravagant thing to do. Considering that a great deal of the evidence at the Courts-Martial was a constant repetition of the same point, and that all the facts, certainly the facts of any importance, have appeared in the public Press, I do not think that the House would wish large expense to be incurred for so doubtful a result.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's previous reply with regard to the re-employment of these officers, does the First Lord realise that what he has told the House is that Captain Dewar, who is a senior captain, has lost his turn through being superseded? Is it the intention of the Admiralty to give him further employment at sea before his time for retirement is reached?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have told the hon. and gallant Member that I cannot give a more conclusive statement. I think it is perfectly clear from what I have said what the wish of the Admiralty is, but these things cannot be promised in advance.

Commander BELLAIRS: I was given an undertaking by the Admiralty that Commander Daniel and Captain Dewar would he acquainted with the charges before they left for Gibraltar. I want to know who was responsible for framing two fresh charges and for postponing the Courts-Martial after their arrival at Gibraltar. Was it the Admiralty or the Commander-in-Chief?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I should like notice of that question. As regards the postponement of the Courts-Martial, that was to meet the very point on which the hon. and gallant Member asked a question a moment ago. He asked why they were not given more notice. The gallant officers had to be given due notice of the new charges.

Commander BELLAIRS: Was it fair to frame new charges at the last moment and postpone the Courts-Martial? That is not recognised by English law.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present political situation in Egypt as affecting His Majesty's Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on the 5th of April to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Malone). The situation remains as defined in the Note addressed to the Egyptian Prime Minister by Lord Lloyd on the 4th of April, the text of which we published in the Press on the following day.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the situation in Egypt quite settled and quiet at the present time?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: So far as I know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS (RIVER THAMES).

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether any steps have been taken to prevent the further flooding of the Thames; and who will be responsible for carrying out the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the question of floods from the Thames in the County of London?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): Measures are being taken in accordance with the report of the recent Committee. The authorities responsible for the several measures are indicated in the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

ARTIFICIAL SILK FACTORIES.

Mr. KELLY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health what reports have been received as to the effects on health of artificial silk manufacture on the people resident in the neighbourhood of such factories?

Sir K. WOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question on the 29th March, and to the reply to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young) on the 3rd instant, and would add that enquiries into this question are proceeding.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any likelihood of an early report being presented to us on the subject?

Sir K. WOOD: I cannot say.

CHILLED BEEF

Mr. R. MORRISON: 26.
asked the Minister of Health whether recent consideration has been given to the necessity for a ruling for the standard of temperature of chilled beef and frozen beef, respectively; and what is the attitude of his Department towards the proposal that so-called chilled beef should be carried at a temperature whereby the liquid content is not frozen?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has not received any representations on the subject. He is advised that there is no public health consideration involved in the question of the temperature at which chilled beef should be imported.

CEMETERIES AND BURIAL GROUNDS (LOANS).

Sir HENRY COWAN: 28.
asked the Minister of Health the total sum which local authorities in England have been authorised to borrow for the provision of cemeteries and burial grounds since 11th November, 1918?

Sir K. WOOD: The total sum is £1,578,860.

VENEREAL DISEASES, SCOTLAND (CLINICS).

Mr. MAXTON: 7.
(for Mr. BUCHANAN) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of towns in Scotland of a population of 10,000 and over which have no voluntary clinics for dealing with the problem of venereal disease; if he can give the names of these towns; and if he is at present taking any steps to urge those local authorities to set up clinics?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As the answer is a long one I propose, with the hon. Member's consent, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of towns in Scotland with a census population of 10,000 or over, and without a public clinic for dealing with venereal diseases, is 26, of which seven have a population of 20,000 or over.

These burghs, in order of population, are:


Clydebank.
Cowdenbeath.


Falkirk.
Renfrew.


Airdrie.
Saltcoats.


Rutherglen.
Peterhead.


Dumbarton.
Galashiels.


Port Glasgow.
Johnstone.


Inverness.
Alloa.


Musselburgh.
Kirkintilloch.


Hawick.
Barrhead.


Buckhaven.
Montrose.


Methil and Innerleven.
Lochgelly



Fraserburgh.


Rothesay.
Bo'ness.


Dunoon.
Gourock.

In three of these burghs—Falkirk, Inverness and Rutherglen—provision of a venereal disease clinic is in course of being made, or under active consideration. Four of these burghs—Airdrie, Port Glasgow, Musselburgh and Gourock—are so conveniently situated for the clinics of adjacent larger towns as not to require independent provision. The remaining nineteen burghs are served to a greater or a less extent by the nearest available clinics of other towns. In eleven of these burghs the Scottish Board of Health have not thought the question of providing a local clinic to be sufficiently urgent to call for pressure by them upon the Local Authorities having regard to the facilities available in neighbouring towns. In the case of the remaining eight burghs—Clydebank, Dumbarton, Hawick and Galashiels, Peterhead and Fraserburgh, Saltcoats and Kirkintilloch, the question of establishing a burgh clinic or a joint clinic has been considered by the responsible Local Authority, and remains open. The development of the schemes in all areas is being carefully watched and reviewed by the Board.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING (BUILDING MATERIALS).

Mr. WELLOCK: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what changes have taken place in the prices of house-building materials during each quarter since June, 1926?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend thinks the hon. Member will best obtain what he desires by reference to the Reports of the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed to survey the prices of building materials which are published
periodically as Command Papers, Although these Reports are not issued at regular quarterly intervals they indicate the variations which take place in the prices of building materials from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLAIN NET TRADE (EMPLOYES).

Mr. KELLY: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women employed in the plain net trade in the West of England in December, 1925, 1926, and 1927, and what number of hours are accepted as the normal working week in this trade?

NUMBERS OF INSURED WORKPEOPLE classified as belonging to the LACE INDUSTRY in the SOUTH WESTERN DIVISION of ENGLAND,* and numbers of such insured workpeople unemployed at July,† 1925, 1926 and 1927.


Date.
Men.
Boys.
Women.
Girls.
Total.


July, 1925:









Numbers Insured
…
…
870
50
670
90
1,680


Numbers Unemployed at 27th July
…
…
228
10
320
40
598


Difference
…
…
642
40
350
50
1,082


July, 1926:









Numbers Insured
…
…
840
50
610
80
1,580


Numbers Unemployed at 26th July
…
…
199
2
98
1
300


Difference
…
…
641
48
512
79
1,280


July, 1927:









Numbers Insured
…
…
870
40
570
80
1,560


Numbers Unemployed at 25th July
…
…
74
—
15
1
90


Difference
…
…
796
40
655
79
1,470


* This Division includes the counties of Berks, Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucester, Hants' Oxfordshire, Somerset and Wiltshire.


† As regards the number of insured workpeople, figures in respect of December are not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIGHTING SERVICES (DISCIPLINE).

Commander BELLAIRS: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have considered the question of coordinating the discipline of the Navy and Royal Marines, under the Naval Discipline Act, with that of the Army, Air Force, and Royal Marines on shore, under the Army and Air Force Acts; and what steps have been taken in this direction?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers of insured workpeople classified as belonging to the lace industry, and the numbers of such persons recorded as unemployed, in the South-Western Division of England at July, 1925, 1926, and 1927, but I am unable to state how many of these are in the plain net branch of the industry. According to the-latest information in my possession 47 to 48 hours constitute a normal working week in the West of England lace industry.

Following is the table:

Oral Answers to Questions — THIRD PARTY INDEMNITY INSURANCE.

Mr. ATKINSON: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to provide for the direct discharge of third party liability by insurers.
The object of this Bill is to secure the position of a person who has suffered injuries and has a claim for damages due to the negligence of another who is insured against liability for such a claim. There are two main classes of persons who will benefit by the Bill. The first class consists of those
persons injured by the negligent driving of motor vehicles and, the second, workmen who are injured by the negligence of employers—negligence such as defective machinery or the absence of fencing which is a breach of the Factory Acts. Most employers and most drivers of motor cars are insured against this liability. Indeed, we know that there is a demand for compulsory insurance in the interests of persons who may be injured, but the trouble is that even if the defendant is insured there is no security that the injured person will get his money, or if the injured person is killed that those who are dependent on him will get that to which they are entitled. This is inevitably the position if the defendant becomes bankrupt, or in the case of a company if it goes into liquidation, before the claim is paid.
This was brought home to us in a rather striking way by a case in the Court of Appeal the other day. A man had been seriously injured and had recovered damages for the injuries, but before he was paid the company went into liquidation. The company was insured, and the insurance company handed over the money to the liquidator of the company, but the liquidator, instead of handing it over to the injured person, claimed that the money had become part of the general assets of the company; that the injured person had no right to it and was only in the position of a general creditor and must prove like any other creditor. With great regret, the Court of Appeal were driven to uphold this view, and, therefore, although the insurance company had paid the money, the injured person lost his claim and got nothing out of it. Even apart from bankruptcy, the insured person can always claim that the insurance company shall pay him, that is the employer or the motor-car owner, but if that is done there is no guarantee that the injured person will ever get his money. Suppose some wholly irresponsible person driving a motor cycle half kills someone and has a judgment against him for £1,000. He has a right to demand payment by the insurance company to himself, but there is nothing to compel him to hand over that money to the injured person. The injured person is only in the position of an ordinary creditor and
may never receive a single penny of the money to which he is entitled.
The position was in part dealt with by the Workmen's Compensation Act, in so far as claims arise under that Act. Section (4) provides that in the case of a bankruptcy or the winding up of a company the insurance company shall pay direct to the injured employé. That recognises the principle for which I am contending, but it only applies to claims for compensation under that Act. It does not apply to claims at Common Law or under the Employers' Liability Act, so far as workmen are concerned, nor does it apply to claims for negligent driving of a motor vehicle. This Bill provides that it shall be the duty of the insurance company, in so far as they are liable, to pay claims direct to the injured person. It does not, of course, entitle the claimant to take proceedings against the insurance company for the purpose of establishing liability or the amount of the liability, but once the liability is agreed, or is established by judicial proceedings, the insurers are to hold the money in trust for the injured person and are under an obligation to pay that money over direct. I do not suggest that the Bill should apply to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act, because that position is dealt with under the Act of 1925. I hope the House will give favourable consideration to the Bill and will grant leave to introduce it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hurst, Mr. A. Kennedy, and Mr. Remer.

THIRD PARTY INDEMNITY INSURANCE BILL,

"to provide for the direct discharge of third party liability by insurers," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

NEW MEMBER.

Emanuel Shinwell, Esquire, for the County of Linlithgow, made the Affirmation required by Law.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Short Title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times), and 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Abolition of death penalty in certain cases.)

Mr. MORRISON: Perhaps you will be good enough, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, to give the Committee the benefit of your guidance in regard to the series of Amendments to this Clause which are on the Paper. The first four deal with the proposed abolition of capital punishment, and I shall be glad—and I am sure the Committee will be pleased—if you will express a desire whether you wish each Amendment to be moved and debated separately or whether we should take a discussion on the first four Amendments and then take a vote at the end of the discussion, it being understood, of course, that, after the main question has been disposed of, there would he no further Debate on the other Amendments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first four Amendments on the Order Paper deal with the same subject, and undoubtedly it would be to the convenience of the Committee to deal with it in one Debate, and then, if it were thought fit, the Committee could divide on the question. I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison) that his first Amendment on the Paper does not seem to be necessary.

Mr. MORRISON: The first Amendment deals with a somewhat narrow point which will be involved in the subsequent discussion. We on these benches do not desire to see any punishment inflicted on actice service which is not equally applicable to ordinary peace time.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member in the first Amendment proposes in page 3, line 34, to leave out the words
"committed on active service." It does not appear to be necessary to carry out what the hon. Member desires.

Mr. MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
(1) In Section four, paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7) shall be omitted.
(2) In Section five the following paragraphs shall be inserted after paragraph (6):
(7) Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard, or uses any means to compel or induce any governor, commanding officer, or other person shamefully to abandon or deliver up any garrison, place, post or guard which it was the duty of such governor or person to defend;
(8) Shamefully casts away his arms, ammunition, or tools in the presence of the enemy;
(9) Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces or any part thereof;
(10) Misbehaves or induces others to misbehave before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice.
I have no doubt that every newspaper that thinks it worth while to make any reference to this discussion to-morrow will use two words that I might as well use myself at the beginning. Those two words are "hardy annual." We on the Labour benches make no apology for the fact that this Debate may be regarded as to some extent a hardy annual. What the words mean is that some of us on the Labour benches, reinforced by Members of other parties, have for several years past been making efforts to bring about the abolition of capital punishment in the Army for a number of offences for which capital punishment at present exists. We have stated our case for several years; we have argued it as Teasonably as we can; and the Secretary for War has replied, as I have no doubt he will reply to-day. What has been his reply? Summarised, it has been that without the death penalty in the Army discipline on active service would be jeopardised; that we must retain the right on active service to order a man to be shot in cold blood by a firing party of his comrades for an offence for which he would not be condemned to death in peace time; that we must retain the penalty, not so much from the point of view that the crime merits death, but as a deterrent
to others, and to keep up the fighting moral of the troops. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman will probably assure us that the greatest care is taken to avoid miscarriages of justice, and he will probably quote again, as he has done in past years, the fact of which most of us are aware, that of the sentences to death in the Great War only 11 per cent. were carried into effect.
The Committee will agree, I think, that that is a fair statement of the case against the abolition of capital punishment in the Army. From our point of view we have put the case for the abolition of capital punishment for certain offences. Our case has been almost entirely based on four points. First of all, we have said that under the Army Act there are many crimes which ought not to be punishable by death. Some of these crimes have been abolished, and some are to be abolished by the present Bill. We still, like Oliver Twist, are asking for more, and are hoping that some other crimes will be abolished this afternoon. The second point that we have urged is, that the very fact that the Secretary for War has always said, "You are making a lot of fuss about this, and 89 per cent. of the men sentenced in the Great War were not in fact executed: their sentences were commuted, and in only 11 per cent. of the cases were the sentences carried out," is proof that those who are finally responsible realised that death sentences ought not to have been passed in those cases. Our third point is that the death sentence is not a deterrent and that there is no evidence that it is a deterrent. In all the Debates that we have had on this subject no right hon. or hon. Member in any quarter of the House has brought forward any evidence that the death sentence is a deterrent. Fourthly, we maintain that discipline would not be adversely affected by the abolition of the death penalty for the offences I shall indicate. We are told that its abolition would affect the fighting moral of the Service. Where is the evidence? We shall probably be told that again this afternoon.
We have a right, after having debated this hardy annual for all these years, to ask what is the evidence on these two points—first that the death sentence is a
deterrent; and, secondly, that its abolition would affect the fighting moral of the Forces? I submit that that is a fair statement of the case for the retention of the death penalty and of the case against it. When these Debates end, when the wordy warfare is over and Members go into the Division lobbies, I think it will be agreed that there is no Division in the whole of our Parliamentary year in which Members go so reluctantly into the Lobby as they do against the abolition of the death penalty. If it were possible to leave the decision to a free vote of Members, without the Whips being put on, the death penalty would be abolished in almost every case. To-day we are making a still further effort. On this occasion we are considerably encouraged, because we can see that we are making progress and that our hardy annual efforts are bearing fruit.
I notice that in the Memorandum of the Bill, in "Notes on Clauses." there is the following reference to Clause 4.
The effect of this Clause is to abolish the death penalty on active service for—

(1) leaving a commanding officer to go in search of plunder;
(2) forcing a safeguard;
(3) forcing or striking a sentinel;
(4) breaking into any house or other place in search of plunder;
(5) when acting as a sentinel sleeping or being drunk on a post;
(6) striking or using or offering violence to a superior officer in the execution of his office;
(7) disobeying in such manner as to show a wilful defiance of authority any lawful command given personally by a superior officer in the execution of his office;
(8) altering or interfering with any air signal without authority.
The only military offences on active service which will remain punishable with death will be mutiny, treachery, cowardice, desertion and leaving a guard, etc., without orders, or in the case of a sentinel leaving a post without being regularly relieved.
I would like to congratulate the Government on having gone so far in the direction for which we have been striving for many years. Some of us in the past have been inclined to be dispirited and to think that we were not making any headway, but apparently at times we were making progress when we least anticipated it. We see as a preface to the Bill a list of offences for which the death penalty is now to be abolished.
Yet we have been told in past Debates that the abolition of the death penalty in such cases would have been prejudicial to discipline, that it would injure the fighting moral, and that these offences had to be retained as a deterrent. Now the Government come along and themselves propose to abolish eight of the offences altogether. The Interdepartmental Committee which has been quoted in previous Debates and which was composed largely of officers of the higher command, did not recommend the abolition of the death penalty for the offences which are now to be excluded. The only offences for which that Committee recommended that the death penalty should be abolished were two, and in Army parlance they were, interfering with the Prevost-Marshal, and "pinching" the rations. The interdepartmental Committee recommended that the death penalty should be abolished in respect of these two offences and that was done, I think in 1925.
Let us take the case of the offence of sleeping while on sentry duty. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen, not only on the Government side but in the Liberal party, in previous Debates waxed eloquent about the impossibility of maintaining discipline if we abolished the death penalty for this offence. Now the Government recommend that the death penalty can, with safety, be abolished in respect of this offence. We thank the Government for the concessions contained in the Bill, but there are still some offences to which the death penalty attaches and in connection with which we think it ought to go, particularly those under the headings of cowardice and desertion. As years go past and as the memories of the War become fainter, it is more and more difficult to get the proper atmosphere in this House for the discussion of these questions. Circumstances have changed considerably.
One only needs to compare the position to-day with the position of 10 years ago to realise how entirely different is the atmosphere. I read, to my surprise, in the papers yesterday that a member of the Cabinet, the Earl of Birkenhead, had been making speeches in Germany in which he congratulated the Germans on their great courage and bravery during the War. What sort of reception would
have been given 10 or 12 years ago to Lord Birkenhead, or anybody else, who had dared to say, not that the Germans as a people were brave people, but that any one single German had any bravery in his composition? Times have changed, however, and Lord Birkenhead to-day can make that statement. It may be argued that Lord Birkenhead is different from ordinary people. That of course, we all admit. Man of us in this House were civilians in pence time and soldiers in war time. Lord Birkenhead was a soldier in peace time and a civilian in war time.
This Bill provides that the only offences which remain punishable by death are treachery, mutiny, cowardice and desertion. There are members of all parties in this House who believe in the entire abolition of capital punishment, not only in regard to the fighting forces but in record to the civilian population. They do not believe in capital punishment at all, under any conditions, and I have every respect for them, but that is not our case to-day. We are not here arguing for the general abolition of capital punishment and, from these benches, we do not desire to challenge the first two offences mentioned here as punishable by death, namely, treachery and mutiny. But we think it is high time that the death penalty was abolished in respect of the others. Take the ease of cowardice. The question has been asked several times in these Debates but has never yet been answered: "What is cowardice?" Nobody has yet ventured on a definition. At the end of the original Act there are no fewer than 39 definitions of terms used in the Act but there is no definition of cowardice. For example, we find that the expression "decoration" means
any medal, clasp, goods conduct badge or decoration.
The expression "enemy" includes
all armed mutineer, armed rebels, armed raiders and pirates.
The expression "constable" includes
a high constable or commissioner.
The expression "carriages" means
a vehicle for carriage or haulage.
The expression "horse" includes
a mule.
The framers of the original Act were so tremendously careful as to give 39
definitions. Could they not have made the number up to 40, by inserting a definition of cowardice? They have not done so, however, and in my difficulty I turned to Webster's Dictionary and I find the expression "coward" defined as
a person who wants courage to meet danger; a timid man; destitute of courage; timid; base.
The only comment I have to offer is that many timid people during the great War voluntarily joined the Army and a great many more were conscripted. The same dictionary defines "cowardice" as
want of courage to face danger; timidity; the fear of exposing one's person to danger.
That is the offence for which we seek to impose the death penalty in this Bill as in London on leave on the morning after a serious air raid in the vicinity of Paddington Station. I saw a queue of motor-cars, piled high with luggage and containing men as well as women who were afraid of exposing themselves to danger and were getting away from London as fast as they could, leaving their homes and their businesses. Those people were guilty of cowardice and desertion, or as the dictionary mercifully puts it, "of timidity." Those of us who were in London for brief periods during the War are familiar with the fact that thousands of people used to dive into the tubes like rabbits into holes when there was danger and it was frequently difficult for the authorities to get them up again. This applied not only to women and children, but to men. They were timid people, but they were guilty of "cowardice and desertion." They deserted their businesses because they were afraid of exposing themselves to danger. We say it is not right that for an offence of that sort the death penalty should be imposed even on active service.
In modern warfare, with its shell fire, bombing and poison gas, it is impossible to isolate from mental and physical breakdown a particular vice and call it cowardice. Why should we shoot the man who has been unable to disguise his fear? The same remark applies to desertion. I have seen men desert under the ordeal of heavy shell fire. Men are not normal at such a time and frequently are unable to control their actions. It is easy for us to sit comfortably here and lay down the law that these men mast be steady and courageous under
fire and under all conditions or run the risk of being shot like dogs. Let us exercise our imaginations. Supposing while this Debate is going on somebody were to drop a bomb in the House of Commons.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I hope it will not drop near me.

Mr. MORRISON: We already see the psychological effect, even of imagining such an occurrence. It gives one an idea of what the reality would be like. Supposing a bomb were to be dropped on this House, Members would not all act in the same way. Some of them would, with as much dignity as possible, get under the seats, and others would sit so quietly that you would not be able to tell by looking at them whether or not they were frightened. Supposing one or two Members were killed and there was some blood about, and supposing everybody knew there were several other bombs about to follow, what would happen Some Members would probably dash about this Chamber, all round the place, not knowing what they were doing at all, and the probability is that the Members who would do that and get the most demented would be those with the longest experience of active service. I think it has been generally accepted in these Debates that when a soldier came under fire first he was the least afraid, and that as time went on he became more and more afraid as his nerves got more and more shattered with the ordeal. You cannot always tell from a man's behaviour whether he is a brave man or a coward. Probably the man who sits patiently, displaying no emotion at all, is trembling with fear, like anybody else.
I think it is simply a problem of psychology. Some people are able to disguise their fears better than others, and it is easy for us to sit comfortably in our places here and lay down the law that men must be steady and courageous under these conditions. I have tried to picture a bomb dropping on this House, but let us go a little further and picture bombs dropping week after week, day after day, with men scarcely getting any proper sleep, and then imagine in what condition Members of this august Assembly would find themselves. We shall then
get an idea of what some of the men who were charged with the offence of cowardice during the War were like. It may be asked, "What qualifications have we, in this House, to decide this question?" This is an argument that has been used in almost all the Debates in which I have taken part, that we are not really in a position to decide this question, and that those who should decide it are those in command—the higher command. I say that this is a problem of psychology, and in a problem of psychology the higher command are not able—they may be very capable strategists and know all about warfare—to know enough to decide this question.
The higher command opposed in this House, year after year, the abolition of field punishment No. 1, which was known among the soldiers for so many years as "crucifixion." Year after year in this House Secretaries of State for War—not the present right hon. Gentleman, but some of his predecessors—got up and said they were assured by the officers of the higher command that it would be detrimental to the discipline of the Army to abolish field punishment No. 1, and that the fighting moral of the troops could not possibly be maintained if it were abolished. Read the Debates, and you will find, year after year, Liberal and Conservative Ministers of War explaining that those responsible were convinced that it could not be abolished without serious results.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: And Labour. Why leave out Labour?

Mr. MORRISON: Those things were abolished, I suggest, by the pressure of public opinion. The pressure of public opinion, through this House in Debates year after year, succeeded in abolishing field punishment No. 1, against the advice of the higher command of the Army. Year after year we have urged the abolition of the death penalty for these offences, and we have had the same reply. The Inter-departmental Committee which was the last organised effort to go into this question stated that the officers of the higher command opposed the proposal to abolish the death penalty for cowardice and desertion. To-day, in spite of them, of the recommendations of the Inter-departmental Committee, of the opposition of the higher command, and of
the speeches from retired Army officers in this House year after year, we have come to the position when field punishment No. 1 has been abolished, when two offences, the penalty for which was death, were abolished in 1925, and when eight further offences punishable by death are proposed to be abolished to-clay; and we ask the Government to go further and complete the job. Sooner or later they will have to do so. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that if he does not accept this Amendment to-day and abolish the sentence of death for the offences of cowardice and desertion, he will have only one more chance, and that will be on the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill next year. If he does not take it next year, it will be left to another Government to carry out this long-overdue reform.

Mr. ATTLEE: I rise to support the Amendment, and I should like at the outset to congratulate the Government on the abolition of the death penalty for certain offences which they have themselves proposed in this Clause. It relieves me of the burden of a great deal of argument. It is no longer necessary to tread the old tracks dealing with questions of moral and discipline, because when you look at these offences in regard to which it is proposed to abolish the death penalty, and then look at those in our Amendment, you will be struck with the difficulty of separating them. Some have a degree of moral turpitude; others in each case are offences simply due to our ordinary human frailty. Take the case of sleeping at the post of duty. I have heard arguments put up over and over again to the effect that it was absolutely necessary to have the death penalty enforced there, because the man was responsible for the lives of his comrades and, therefore, it was right that, if he fell asleep, he should know he was liable to be shot. That has gone. We have passed the time when cowardice was regarded merely as a moral offence. It is now recognised that cowardice is a physical defect rather than a matter of moral turpitude. It is impossible to put one in and leave the other out or to put them in separate categories. Take the question of breaking into a house for purposes of plunder. That is a moral offence, but we all perhaps
remember having committed something of the nature of plunder in days gone by. Take the case of shamefully casting away arms. There is some degree of moral turpitude there, but you cannot put these in separate categories.
4.0 p.m.
There is one great difference, however, between the offences for which the death penalty is to be abolished and those for which it is to be retained. There is a degree of certainty about the offences in the Bill. You can ascertain whether a man leaves his commanding officer to go in search of plunder, forces a safeguard, strikes a sentinel or is asleep on his post. They are quite definite acts. The other offences, however, are all in a different category. Take the paragraph which says:
Shamefully abandons or delivers up any garrison, place, post, or guard.
Who is to judge whether or not a garrison or post has been delivered up shamefully? It may be said, "The man on the spot," but people who try the case are not on the spot. Supposing men are tried for abandoning a certain trench. It is quite possible that it is necessary to make an example in order to encourage the others, but everyone knows that it is a most difficult task to decide whether to hang on to a post or give it up. I can remember quite well having to take over a certain position, and asking the General what were my orders. He said, "You must hang on to the last." I said, "Thank God! I shall not have to take a decision whether to clear out or not." It is on such a decision—made, perhaps, by a corporal, lance-corporal or even a private—whether to hang on to a post or to deliver it up, that a man has possibly to be shot, in order to encourage the others. Read any military history, and it will be found that the most celebrated generals in history have been blamed in some cases for shamefully abandoning posts and in other cases for hanging on too long. The offence in paragraph (7) is an entirely doubtful point. Paragraph (8) is in the same sort of category. With regard to paragraph (9):
Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces or any part thereof.
I am always very suspicious of the word "calculated." It is the kind of word used in D.O.R.A. or the Trade Disputes Act—a word used in order to catch some-
body when there is no real offence. We do not quite know who calculates. A man may calculate something and find that it is wrong, but really his act is calculated. Where that word comes in, it always awakens my suspicions.
Finally, we come to the question of cowardice. Everyone now knows that the line dividing the coward from the hero is extremely small. We all know something to-day with regard to the psychology of persons under the strain of active service, and I think, possibly, the only argument that can be brought forward with regard to cowardice is that it is absolutely necessary to have the terror of death before one. That does not work at all satisfactorily. The penalty which has been taken away with regard to sleeping should also be taken away with regard to cowardice. It has been said that if you did not have the death penalty, many would commit these offences in order to get 10 years' penal servitude, and so escape further active service. It does not work in that way. A man is sent back to the line, and has to serve his sentence at the conclusion of the war.
Then it was said that it was absolutely necessary to keep up the moral. I entirely deny that. I never knew of any troops being kept to their duty by the fear of something behind. I do not believe it is of any use trying to keep men to their work by fear. If you are going to have war, let the people fight who want to fight. The idea that you can make people fight by some sort of penalty is, I believe, entirely false psychology. I would ask anyone in this House who served in the War to think of any occasion on which he had some unpleasant job to do, when he said to himself, "If I do not go through with this, I shall he shot." Of course, it never occurred to him, and in these days there is something extraordinarily mean in the idea that you must retain this punishment. Courage is another uncertainty. We know that a man all his life is not a coward. Many men are brave at one time and are cowards at another. It is a mere chance whether a man is a coward or is brave on any occasion.
The four offences for which we want to see the death penalty taken away are, in their very nature, uncertain, and it is of the essence that offences for which there is this punishment should be
certain. I am glad that the Government are taking away the death penalty for some offences, but they are certain, whereas the others are uncertain. Whatever reason there is—and I think there is very strong reason—for taking out those offences, there are ten times as much reason for taking out those in our Amendment. I do not know quite why it should be necessary to yield so very slowly on these points. It took years and years of hard work to abolish flogging. It has taken years of work gradually to cut down the number of offences for which the death penalty is imposed. There is a fight all the time, although all the basis of argument for retaining the death penalty has gone. We do not hear any of those old pleas made year after year from Liberal and Conservative Governments—[Interruption.] The Labour Government were in a different position. We are not blaming in the least either the Liberal or Conservative Governments, because they have always been advised by their technical advisers.

Mr. MACPHERSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he and his colleague the right hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh), when they were at the War Office, altered a single line of the law affecting the death penalty?

Mr. ATTLEE: As a matter of fact, we were in for a very short time, and the Army (Annual) Act came on very early when we were in office. We submitted the whole question at once to a committee to inquire into the whole question and bring up a report. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends were so eager to put a Conservative Government in power, that we were only a short time in office.

Mr. E. BROWN: Was it not the fact that the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) proposed an Amendment to the Army (Annual) Act when the right. hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) was in charge, and that the Government turned the Amendment down?

Mr. ATTLEE: We were not prepared to make piecemeal alterations at the moment when the whole matter was under discussion by a Committee. The point I was making was that Liberals and Conservatives were, no doubt, influenced by
the technical opinion of their military advisers. Well, the opinion of their military advisers is steadily changing, and this Bill shows that. I agree with the hon. Member who moved this Amendment in suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that he should take his chance of making a clean sweep, and of going down to history as the Minister of War who abolished the death penalty, rather than do this thing piecemeal. I say, again, that the case we have put forward on behalf of this Amendment is even stronger than the case put forward by the Government for their own Amendment of the Act.

Major HILLS: I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War on the Amendment that he is making in the Army (Annual) Act. I have on more than one occasion pleaded for some alteration of the death penalty, and now, under the Amendments which the Government are making in the Act, the only offences punishable with death are mutiny, treachery, cowardice, desertion and leaving a guard. The only one about which I feel any doubt now is the question of cowardice. I do not think that any of us would want to abolish the penalty for desertion or leaving a guard, and, of course, that makes it quite impossible for me to support the Amendment now before the Committee. If you abolished the death penalty in the case set out in paragraph (9)—
Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces or any part thereof.
then you would abolish the death penalty for treachery or mutiny, and, therefore, I cannot support the Amendment. But, on the question of cowardice, I have always felt very great difficulty. You shoot a man for cowardice, but you do not make that man any braver, for he is dead. Do you make his comrades any braver? I agree with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee), that men on active service are not kept up to the mark by the thought that they will be shot. Many Members of this House know what it is just before the zero hour—just before going over the top. I am perfectly certain that no man says to "I must go forward, or else I shall be shot," and I rather mistrust the argument that you make men brave by that threat. I do not think you do, and if you do not make the man himself brave, and you do not make his comrades brave
if you shoot him, whom have you left I believe the only case in which it would be justifiable in the sense that it would effect the object it is supposed to effect, would be in the case of a broken force or broken army—men breaking away in flight—and then I can imagine that shooting some men might stop the rout. I can imagine that, but, except for that, I am very doubtful about the effect of the death penalty for cowardice. My experience of life, and such experience as I had in the War, have shown me that the bravest men are afraid of something, and that the greatest cowards are brave under some conditions.
Cowardice is a matter of the greatest difficulty. Some people, fortunately, were not afraid of shells, but they might have been afraid of something else; and a man might be shot just because the special sort of danger of which he was afraid was one which he could not resist. Perhaps the greatest argument which I have against it is this. It is all very well to have a death penalty when you have a professional Army, and men enlist on terms which they know, but if we were, unfortunately, at war again, our Army would not be a professional Army, but an Army of all the manhood of the nation. What right have we to take a man from the shop or the office and, if his nerves failed under the strain of war, to shoot him? I do not think that we have that right, and I do not think that it would do any good, or make the Army braver. I believe that I voice what all men who were in my position would say, when I state that among the people who went to the War from quite peaceful pursuits, and into whose thoughts the idea of fighting in the Army had never entered, the standard of courage was much greater and higher than people suppose. I cannot imagine anything higher than the courage shown by many of the units in the Great War; that courage is something in the man himself, and is not put into him by the idea of any punishment such as death. For these reasons I welcome the concessions which the Government have made. I am very glad that they have made them, and I look forward to the time when cowardice will be added to the crimes for which a man is not shot.

Mr. THURTLE: I was very glad to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman who
has just spoken say that he had very serious doubts about the propriety of retaining cowardice as something for which to impose the death penalty. He has a logical mind, and I should like him to consider further the distinction he has made between cowardice in the field and desertion. He said that he would like to see the death penalty for cowardice abolished, but not the death penalty for desertion. I submit that, in fact, cowardice in the field and desertion are very largely manifestations of the same nerve failure. If he cares to study the records of the number of people who were shot for desertion, he will find that most of the desertions took place when the battalion was actually moving up the line. There is a steady pressure on the nerves all the time that one is on the battlefield, and it is quite conceivable that the breaking point occurs in some cases, not when a man actually gets upon the field, but before he actually reaches the field; yet it is still manifestly a nerve failure and nothing else. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman admits that we are justified in asking for the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice in the field, he will, if he thinks the matter over in the light of his own experience and knowledge of active service conditions, be inclined, I think, to come down on our side in regard to the penalty for desertion.
Let me say a word about, the concessions which are being offered to us by the Government. I welcome these concessions, but I would like to point out how paltry they are. I guarantee to say that for the eight crimes for which the death penalty is being abolished, there were not five executions during the whole of the War. Of that five, two were for the offence of sleeping on post, so that, if you take the others, the Army have practically not been exercising their powers. They did not exercise them even in the time of the tremendous test of the Great War. What the War Office are doing, therefore, and taking great credit for doing, is like formally abolishing the death penalty for sheep stealing 50 years after the practice of imposing that penalty had been discontinued. There is only one material concession in this list of concessions, and I am prepared to concede that. This is the abolition of the death penalty for sleeping on post. It is a real concession on the part of the War Office,
but I would invite the House to take this concession as an illustration of the way in which the mind of the War Office operates. When the Departmental Committee considered this matter four years ago, they specifically declared that they went particularly into the question whether the death penalty could be abolished for sleeping on post, and, after the most careful consideration, they came to the conclusion that the penalty could not be dispensed with. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for War himself, speaking on that point, said this:
It may mean the lives of tens, even of hundreds of his comrades; it may mean the difference between success and failure of a large operation, which may re-act upon thousands of lives.
He went on to say that he did not want the sleeping sentry shot, but there was no alternative. I do not want to score cheap debating points, or to exult over the fact that the War Office had gone back on their original contention, but I do want the Committee to direct their attention to this change of front by the War Office, so that, when they are considering the position which the War Office now takes up, namely, that the death penalty may not be abolished for desertion and cowardice because of its dreadful reaction upon discipline in the Army, they will realise that this is not necessarily the final word. If they have been wrong, or if they have shifted their ground with regard to material matters like sleeping on post and Field Punishment No. 1, it is conceivable that they are wrong with regard to desertion and cowardice. We do not want to argue the question of cowardice and desertion. As Members know, it is largely a psychological and neurological question. We have discussed it in the past very fully, and I claim that the weight of argument has been heavily on our side. The Government have not been able to show that the men who are convicted of these offences are culpable or criminal in any real sense of the word. They have fallen because of the imperfections of their nervous and physical endowment, and enlightened public opinion to-day does not regard that as sufficient reason for imposing the death penalty.
The great thing about the death penalty, which the House must not
forget, is that it is irrevocable. Once you have killed the man, you cannot bring him back to life. We have read terrible stories of what happened in the French Army. On two separate occasions, the French Army have held an inquiry into the executions which took place during the War, going carefully into the facts in a dispassionate manner and examining all the records. They came to the conclusion that these two sets of men were executed by a mistake, and that they ought never to have been executed and their characters have been rehabilitated. I do not know how many of the 260 odd men and lads who were executed during the War might, on a careful examination, be found to have been executed in error. The fact of the matter is that, once you execute a man, you punish him beyond recall, and I do ask the Committee to bear that fact very strongly in mind when they vote on this issue.
I have spoken at great length on this question before, and I have probably bored the House, and I do not want to bore the Committee any more, but I would like to say this. The Labour party, of which I am a member, have pledged themselves to the abolition of the death penalty except for the offences of mutiny and treachery. If the Government do not abolish it for cowardice or desertion, we shall abolish it if we get an opportunity, as I hope we may, but I would prefer this not to be a party issue, would like to think that the British House of Commons, in 1928, had a sufficiently keen sense of human justice to realise that this kind of penalty has become a barbarous anachronism, and took the necessary steps to get rid of it. I want to say this final word. There is a suggestion that the Labour party are making the question of Army discipline a matter of party politics. I do not believe that to be true. We in the Labour party believe that, involved in this question of the death penalty, is the great question of human justice. There is the great question of seeing that the weak brother, who is weak through no fault of his own, shall not be dealt with unjustly; and, if our opponents force us to make this a party issue and if they will not see the great humanitarian impulse behind this demand, the responsibility will be theirs and not ours.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I am sorry if I shall have to approach the question from another point of view. I think my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench ought to be very grateful for the response with which his so-called concessions have been received by the Opposition. While, however, he is making these concessions, has he not been giving away something of the rights and safety of the Army in war? I know there are different points of view, and I would like to put mine, and I hope the Committee will not think that I am any more hard-hearted than hon. Members who take a different view. I see their point of view. I realise their sympathy for the man who in the field has, perhaps through lack of nerve, been condemned to death, but I will ask them to believe me when I say that it is necessary to hold this fear of the death penalty over men whenever they go forward to face frightful risks. An hon. Member in this discussion asked what evidence there was of any army going to pieces because of the lack of the death penalty. In the War I served during the whole time in Russia. I can say without fear of contradiction, I believe, that the Russian Army went to pieces after the first revolution, the Kerensky revolution, owing to the abolition of the death penalty, owing to the consistent refusal of Kerensky to sign any death warrant. I do not want to go into personal reminiscences, but I would like to tell the House that I was in Galicia at the great so-called offensive of the Kerensky Army which began on 1st July, 1917. There was really no fighting at all on the part of the Russians. A few officers went forward, accompanied by a few non-commissioned officers, and here and there an odd man or two, but there was really no fighting, and the number of casualties was infinitesimal.
After two days I decided to go back to report to the Government at home what had happened. I interviewed the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army, General Gutor, who is now, I believe, serving with the Bolshevists, and I asked him to say from his professional experience what measures it was necessary to take in order to restore the fighting efficiency of the Russian Army. The first thing he said was. "You must press furiously to restore the death penalty.
You must press Kerensky to restore the death penalty." My hon. Friend who spoke from these benches said the death penalty was required more after an army had gone to pieces, in order to restore discipline. I beg to disagree. When General Kornilov took charge of the Russian Army he was allowed to restore the death penalty, but it was then too late; the rot had set in and there was no possibility of restoring discipline. If it had been possible to retain the death penalty in the Russian Army I am certain that it would have kept that army in fighting trim for a longer period.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not fair to assume that their illusions had been dispelled by that time?

Sir A. KNOX: There are always a certain number of men in any army who are not courageous, who do not want to fight, and I think it is necessary to hold some threat over those men to force them to go forward. The difference between the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself is that they think chiefly of the man who has to suffer the death penalty, while I think of his comrades, whose lives are risked by some failure of his. I have one or two questions to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War about some of these so-called concessions which he has seen fit to make to the Opposition. They are called concessions to the Opposition. Are they not concessions at the expense of the British Army? There is Number 5, which says that in future a man who when acting as a sentinel goes to sleep or is drunk at his post, is not to suffer the death penalty. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) quoted the findings of the Commission on this point, showing that they were strongly of opinion that it was impossible to introduce this change owing to the danger to thousands of that sentinel's comrades, and I thoroughly agree with that view. Then there is Number 6, which deals with the case of a man striking or using or offering violence to a superior officer. In future, if any man wants to get sent to the rear all he has to do is to go and hit his commanding officer in the eye. Supposing there is a "push" coming on, and a man does not want to go over the top. All he has to do is to hit his commanding officer, and he will be sent back to the rear; he will
return to the battalion after a few weeks, perhaps, by which time the "push" will be over and the battalion will be resting—those that are left, because perhaps 60 or 70 per cent. will have been killed. That is one of the possible dangers arising from this concession.
I wish to know definitely whether before making these so-called concessions the right hon. Gentleman got the considered agreement of the Army Council. I would like to ask further, though I do not suppose it will be possible for him to tell me, what correspondence took place in the War Office before this agreement was arrived at? Where did the suggestion start? Was it a suggestion of the politicians, in order to make concessions to the opposite benches, and so to get a pleasant Debate, or did the military Members start this idea? I only rose to ask those questions. If the Army Council, with their far greater experience, see fit to support these recommendations, it is not for me to say anything against them. But if I thought these were mere sentimental political concessions, I should oppose them in the interests of the Army and of the country.

Miss WILKINSON: As the last speaker has had considerable experience in these matters, I would like to ask him whether it was the belief that if Kerensky—who, I believe, followed Allied advisers against the opinion of his own experts—had shot Russian soldiers by their thousands, he could have kept them in that war in which they had lost all belief? Kerensky's army could not be made to fight, because they did not any longer believe in the war. I am not speaking in any political sense, but one has only to compare the actions and the attitude of that army, which believed it was being forced forward not in Russia's interests, with the attitude of the army when it had been reorganised after the second revolution. Then there was a smaller army, but it was an army of men who believed in what they were fighting for, believed they were fighting For the safety of the Revolution.

Sir A. KNOX: I would like to ask the bon. Member whether she does not think the difference may lie in the fact that
after the second revolution the first thing they did was to reintroduce the death penalty Did not that make all the difference?

Miss WILKINSON: In arguing a subject like this you can, of course, pick out one thing and say that that was the cause; but anyone who has read the history of those times and tries to say that the difference between the Kerensky army and the Bolshevik army was simply due to the reintroduction of the death penalty is really—I say it with all respect—talking nonsense. It was evident that the whole moral of the army had been changed by the propaganda which was carried on amongst the men in the army. From the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) it may have been misguided propaganda, but you cannot get away from the fact that what the Bolsheviks did in order to restore the moral of the army—apart from the reintroduction of the death penalty—was to institute a terrific propaganda in the ranks in order to make the soldiers believe in what they were fighting for. If the deserters from the Kerensky army had been shot—I am quoting now from Kerensky's own book—they would have had to shoot something like one-fifth of the entire army, because the men were floating away in troops. The real difference between those two armies was that one army wanted to fight and the other did not.
Feeling that I know nothing whatever of what happened on active service during the War I should not have intervened in this Debate but for one incident which has always stood out in my mind. I believe that if the hon. Members who are going to vote against our amendment could have witnessed that incident their views might have been altered. I was in the house of a widowed mother who had just received the news that her boy had been shot for cowardice. She did not get that news from the Army, of course—the Army notice was merciful; apparently she had learned it accidently from men who knew what had happened. I shall never forget the anguish of that mother, and the anguish of that home. The news certainly killed the mother within a very few weeks. I cannot help feeling that if an army is to be kept
together by shooting men whose nerves fail under the terrible conditions of modern warfare, then no cause is worth fighting for. Hon. Members will recall how during the War public feeling was stirred to its depths by news of the shooting of young men at dawn—because their nerves had failed. It was amongst the most horrible things of that horrible War—the feeling that those who were going through all that the men in the fighting line had to endure might be shot because their nerves failed, especially when it was a case of young officers condemned by older officers whom they might have displeased in some way, so that the latter could not take the calm and balanced view they ought to have done. I know, of course, that no one who was the immediate superior officer of another officer could sit on a court which was judging him, but the evidence of that superior officer would, of course, be taken in such a case. Surely before the death penalty is inflicted in a case like that one ought to take the whole trial right away not only from the immediate scene of action—which, I understand, is already done, because the highest officer commanding has to put his signature to the death warrant before it can be carried out—but, in addition, we ought to get right out of the temper of war before deciding to take away a man's life.
I want to ask how many of the 260 men who are said to have been executed would have been executed if the actual carrying out of the sentence had been postponed until after the Armistice? How many would have been felt to have sinned so terribly, to have risked the lives of their comrades so fatally, that when the heat of the war had died down it was still necessary that they should pay the extreme penalty? That is the test question of whether a man ought to have been executed for cowardice. We know that these cases of cowardice are often a matter of the imagination. There is the phlegmatic type of soldier, the type of Tommy whom Bairnsfather drew for us during the War, the man who went through the War with a shrug of his shoulders, hardly troubling to imagine it, realising that it was his duty and just going on with it. On the other hand, there was the man of the type of the son of a young poet, whose name I will not mention, of the most intense imagina-
tion. Though he was a man of extraordinary physical courage, yet his nerve failed because his imagination al one moment got the better of him. These are not cases which ought to be decided in the heat of battle. Surely they ought only to be decided when passions have died down. Those of us who have heard men talk long afterwards of what happened at the front know that if at times there had been a sympathetic officer or a sympathetic comrade near by to carry the man through the dreadful moment when his nerve had gone, he might at some time afterwards have been the bravest of the brave.
I speak as a woman who was very far from the tiring line, and I feel that it is difficult for us who are in this quiet atmosphere, and who were in comparative quiet during the War, to realise the intense strain which was placed upon our men. I know that I myself only realised something of the conditions when seeing quite recently that marvellous play "The Unknown Warrior," which was staged in London. It was not concerned with this, particular matter, but I think nothing could bring before an audience so vividly the intense strain which was put upon our men. I wish that play could have been witnessed by the many thousands of people who shout for the death penalty, and who say we cannot keep an army together without it. I hate war, and everything connected with war. I believe that war is the last blasphemy. I believe there is no cause the winning of which can be worth war and the killing of other people. If we are to have war, then it must be fought by men who believe in it, and not those whose nerves fail them, who have been taken from the purposes of peace and put in a position which involves an almost unbearable strain. How can such men be expected to act coolly and without fear in face of such tremendous dangers which they have never faced before? Very often these men have been placed in the field after only a few weeks' training. I want a pledge that, as the Government have now gone so far, they will go one step further, and decide to wipe out cowardice as one of the things for which the death penalty will be abolished.

Sir F. HALL: One would think from some of the remarks that have been made in this Debate that a considerable number of men were shot during the late
War. When we reflect that we had some 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 men engaged in the War, I think it shows the greatest credit to those engaged that it was found necessary to inflict the death penalty on such a small number of occasions. I would like to remind hon. Members that before a death sentence is carried out it receives the most careful consideration. I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) said upon this point, and I congratulate the Government upon having gone such a long way by making concessions. This is not a question of political expediency or anything of that kind, and I am sure that the Secretary of State for War, in conjunction with the Army Council, has given this matter the most careful consideration. I trust that in the near future my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to go one step further and abolish the death penalty as applied to cowardice. I cannot possibly support this Amendment., but I am entirely in sympathy with it as far as it affects the question of cowardice.
I do not know where cowardice starts or where it finishes, but I remember that during the War this point was brought home to me most vividly in the case of a schoolmaster upon whom devolved a rather difficulty duty which required a certain amount of courage to be shown. I believe that that man had as much courage as many of those who did not show any fear under similar circumstances. I have yet to learn that there is any man from the highest to the lowest degree who served in the important danger zones during the War who did not experience some fear come upon him not once or twice or thrice, but very often. It was not a question of the death penalty that kept men from showing fear. The men felt that they had a job to carry out. I do not think that fear of the death penalty affects the soldier at all; he does his job because he think it is his job, and I do not think any fear of the death penalty enters his head. When the schoolmaster have alluded to came to me and told me the condition he was in, I saw the medical officer, and I got him sent back to the base. A week or two after he came hack, and I am sure that man was no more desirous of showing cowardice
than any other soldier, but fear was in his nervous system. He had been brought up in quite a different life, and he possessed the scholastic mind. I told this man what it meant if be acted nervously, and I pointed out to him that his actions might place others in a most difficult position. I want. hon. Members to realise that this kind of thing deflects upon the men themselves, although I cannot say where cowardice starts or where it finishes.
As the Secretary of State for War has been so magnanimous and has gone such a long way to meet the views of those who want to see the death penalty abolished as applied to active service, hope he will give this point further consideration, and, if he will agree to abolish the death penalty as applied to cowardice, I think it will be a very good thing for the Army as a whole. I am sure it would be a good thing for the officers as well, because, when they are called upon to decide whether a certain action is an act of cowardice or not they naturally turn to themselves and ask: "Have I always been particularly brave when facing the enemy; have I ever been a coward? Perhaps I have not shown it, but the chances are that I may have been as great a coward as the man who is being charged with cowardice." If my right hon. Friend can go one step further on this point in the near future, I am sure many of us will be extremely grateful to him.

Lord HUGH CECIL: I was a member of the Committee which inquired into the subject now under discussion, and, in view of the experience I gained during that inquiry, I rise to make one or two observations. I was very strongly convinced from the evidence placed before that Committee that no one was ever shot during the War for losing his nerve. The death sentence was seldom enforced, although there were a considerable number of people who were condemned to death. Only in a comparatively small number of cases was the death sentence actually carried out. It was only carried out, as far as I recollect, where there was what may be called wilful and deliberate cowardice in cases where there was plenty of time for them to think over what they were doing before they took part in some act of
desertion by which they were deliberately avoiding the dangers of war.
In such cases, there was no question about the loss of nerve. I do not say that such a man deserves to be shot, and in the narrow sense a person should only be punished for what he is actually doing. The only consideration of justice that comes before the court is: Has the person charged done that of which he is accused? Whether the punishment is or is not ultimately the equivalent in suffering for the small wrong which the person has committed is obviously beyond all human investigation. It is necessary to realise that these very lamentable punishments are inflicted from motives of expediency. A man is shot because it is considered expedient that he should be shot; that is the only element which enters into the question, and the man has been told beforehand that if he did what he was charged with he would be shot. The man has done this with his eyes open, and therefore it is not unjust in the public interest that he should be shot. The man has been fully warned of the position in which he would find himself if he did such an act. The reason why such a thing has to be done is that it is necessary for the efficient conduct of the war. The reason why we hang murderers is that it is necessary for the peaceful and social order of the state.
The death penalty in the case of the Army on active service has an important effect, not perhaps directly as a deterrent, because where you are dealing with the danger of death, where the motive for the crime for which the death penalty is inflicted is cowardice, it is obvious that deterrents must act in a very peculiar way. The fear of being shot, after trial by a court-martial, overcomes the fear of being shot by the enemy. There is a much more important thing in all court-martial punishment influences, and that is in making everyone think gravely about the crime committed. If you shoot a soldier for cowardice, that makes the whole Army think that it is a shocking thing. The penalty of death has quite an unique quality of setting up a particular offence, and making people think that that is a thing which no one should do, not mainly from the fear of the actual penalty hut because it sets a stigma upon the offence which nothing else can do.
While I am delighted that the Government are going so far in diminishing the number of offences to be punishable by death, I should be entirely guided by the advice of distinguished officers. I hope it will not be felt that by abandoning the death penalty in these cases there is anything wrong in enforcing that penalty in time of war where the successful conduct of the war requires it. This is a matter essentially to be decided in the light of that expediency. I am certain if you make war—I heartily agree with what was said by the hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) about the horrors of war—nothing is more foolish or less humane than to make it without the sincere purpose of carrying it through. You must achieve success, and to do that, having given everyone fair warning, you must put to death those who imperil the success of the war by demoralising the Army, their own comrades.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. BECKETT: I apologise for continuing this discussion, but I think all parties in the Committee will agree that in consequence of the concessions which have been put forward by the Secretary of State for War the discussion on this subject has been much less acrimonious than it has been in former Debates, Until the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), one almost felt happy in the knowledge that at last we were dealing with this matter in a civilised way and not in a manner reminiscent of the Middle Ages. When I was serving in the War, I do not remember, although I was in the ranks, ever feeling in the slightest degree anything but friendship, and in many cases affection, for those who were serving in the Army in superior positions to myself and whom I had to obey; and I never felt anything but affection for the majority of the people at home in England; but I remember that when I used to read in the English papers some of the speeches of old men with landed estates, who sat in armchairs and gloated over youth weltering, I used to feel that the War was a waste of time, and that, if it had only been a war to take away those reactionary old men and make the world a little more comfortable, we should have been in a much better position.
The Noble Lord's statement this afternoon would have been all right if this House and those who are going to vote against this Amendment were prepared to accept the theory that wars should be fought by people who believed in them, that wars should be fought by people who wanted to fight them, that wars should be fought by the people whose intrigues and greediness and selfishness had caused them, and that there should be no conscript element of any kind in connection with war. When you conscript a man to defend a country that does not belong to him, when you send him into the trenches to face the most infernal horrors, and when you tell him that, because you have told him that if he does not do what you tell him he will be shot, you are entitled to shoot him when he becomes, what it is so easy to call from the benches of this House, a deliberate coward, I cannot understand it. What is a deliberate coward? I am perfectly certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who, I believe, is going to reply to this Debate would not be able to define what is a deliberate coward, nor can any Member of this House define it, and certainly not in connection with the subject that we are discussing. The Noble Lord went on to say that he could not understand the mind of a man who would face being shot by his own people rather than face the risk of being shot by the enemy; but the deliberate coward, the sneak, the skulker, the little tiny minority of riff-raff and dregs which I agree you always get in any large gathering of men, will not play that game at all. The men who suffer are not men of that kind at all; they are those who are not cunning enough to hide their fear in a nice sheltered job at home, or in a comfortable job a good many miles from the work that has to be done.
I wish the benches opposite had been much fuller during the straightforward and manly speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall). I do not think that anyone would describe him as addicted to sloppy sentimentalism. I have heard his speeches and know his views on many subjects, and I should describe him as a very hard and practical man. I have heard him speak and seen hi n vote in support of things which, in
my opinion—perhaps he would describe me as a sloppy sentimentalist—were going to cause much more hardship than this death penalty, but the difference is that in this case he has come up against instances of it. He referred to the case of a man he knew who had actually fallen into this weakness that we are now discussing. He did not have to use his imagination, because the case was brought under Ins immediate notice, and, because he was in touch with it, he understood it, as other hon. Members opposite would understand it if they were in the same position. This comfortable theory under which we sit here and condemn to death men who are not brave enough to defend our property, and paint ourselves as Spartan fathers who sacrifice our own sons for the sake of our country, is all right in the abstract, but that is not the cause of the attitude of the majority of the people who disagree with us. It is that they do not see how unfair and cruel this penalty is, and, when one of the most practical and hard-headed of them comes into actual touch with it, he takes practically the line that we take, and says he cannot define cowardice, while men who never saw anything of the War, unless it were by way of a privileged tour at the hack of the lines, speak of men being deliberate cowards. We ought not in this House, if we are going to war at all, which God forbid, to say that we value our property, our comfort and our homes so highly that we are prepared to shoot men whose nerve fails in the effort to protect us in the comfort and security that we enjoy.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amend-merit, in line 1, to leave out the words "paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and," and to insert instead thereof the word "paragraph."
This has been a deeply impressive Debate. It is a Debate in which there is a possible temptation to be sentimental and abstract, but I think it will be generally admitted that the speeches, whatever may have been the point of view expressed, have been made with a desire to face facts as they are, to accept the necessity of administering an Army in the field by an iron rule, and at the same time to recognise that the rules by which the British Army has been administered in the past are not necessarily in all respects
the rules which Parliament should approve for the future. It certainly is a most significant thing that the Government of the day, no doubt after most careful investigation and expert advice, should have been prepared in the name of the country to abandon the death penalty in respect of a number of grave breaches of discipline which time after time have been declared from the Government Bench to be, in the opinion of the advisers of the Government, absolutely necessary cases for the preservation of the death penalty.
I listened with great attention to what the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) said, and, if he will allow me to say so, I think his argument was more ingenious than convincing. No doubt it is true that in any civilised system of punishment you ought to give public notice of what the punishment is going to be before you can fairly condemn the man who has committed the crime and impose the punishment upon him. That was one of the principal points made by the Noble Lord, but it seems to me to be a very long way from proving the only proposition that matters, namely, that at this time of day the punishment of death, not as a necessary consequence but as a contemplated consequence, of the crime of cowardice in the field, should be preserved. You do not in the least prove that proposition by saying that, after all, you give public notice to men in uniform that such is the consequence which may follow if they exhibit this failing, and that, that being so, there is nothing more to complain of. That, I am sure, is not the point.
The main practical consideration, I should have thought, was whether the preservation of the death penalty in this particular case of cowardice does, as a matter of fact and experience, secure that men who would otherwise be overwhelmed by the terror in front of them and desert their duty will not do so. Does the fact that this penalty may be waiting for them, if they so act, in fact cause them to persist in their duty? If it did so, that, no doubt, would be a strong argument for maintaining it. That is the old argument which has been used in many cases in reference to the death penalty, but I would ask the House to observe that no single speaker in this Debate, from any quarter of the House, has suggested that as a matter of fact
the death penalty for cowardice is a practical influence in keeping men to their duty. No one says that the fact that the death penalty is waiting for a man if he breaks ranks is the thing that makes him act in a more courageous manner. There is no gallant gentleman opposite who will say that of the men whom he may have led; there is no serving soldier in this House who would say that of his comrades; and it will be a very strange thing if the Secretary of State for War tells us that a view which is entertained in no quarter of the House—and the House contains many men who have had practical experience of this matter—is the view which has compelled the War Office none the less to preserve the death penalty for this particular offence.
I am not in the least desiring to do more than sum up the effect of the Debate on my own mind, but its effect on my mind is, frankly, this. I feel, first of all, that the War Office, after full consideration, has come to the conclusion that the old rule of the Army Act can be quite substantially changed with safety and with public advantage. I am very glad that that is so, and they are entitled to our full gratitude and congratulations. But now comes the next question: Have they drawn the line at the right place? I feel, after listening to this Debate, that the Amendment moved from the Labour benches, which seeks to strike out paragraphs (1), (2), (6) and (7) from Section 4 of the Army Act, has in fact led to a Debate about, for all practical purposes, one only of these four paragraphs. There is a good deal that might be said on both sides with regard, for instance, to paragraph (6):
Knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces or any part thereof.
It seems to me that it would be taking a very large responsibility, on the material at present before us, to say that the offence which is defined in those words is one which should be removed from the death penalty Section to the penal servitude Section. That was the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), in a speech which, if he will allow me to say so, many of us will long remember, because of its obvious sincerity and simplicity.
I should have thought that it was desirable for the Committee of the House of Commons to have the opportunity of
expressing its views on this simple question of whether the offence of cowardice, of "misbehaving before the enemy in such manner as to show cowardice," was, in the view of the Committee of the House, an offence which ought to be removed from the death penalty Section to the penal servitude Section. I should have thought that it was desirable that we should have that isolated question before us, and it is for that reason that I have moved my Amendment to the proposed Amendment. The result would be that the Amendment, if thus altered, would read:
(1) In section four, paragraph (7) shall be omitted,
paragraph (7) being the one which deals with the case of cowardice. I am not seeking to prejudge the other cases; they are, no doubt, less in the public eye, and have been only very cursorily referred to in this Debate; but manifestly the offence of
Knowingly doing an act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces,
is an offence which may take many forms, and some forms of which may, for aught that I know, justify the preservation of the death penalty, if anything justifies it. I have already drawn up the supplementary Amendment, which, if my Amendment were agreed to, would have to be made in line 2 of the proposed Amendment, namely, to leave out the word "paragraphs" and insert the word "paragraph," so as to make the consequential alteration. We have no desire to be ingenious, or to draw distinctions that ought not to be drawn. It is for the purpose of raising a perfectly plain issue. For myself, speaking, of course, without the knowledge which, no doubt, may be derived from expert opinion inside the War Office, this Debate convinces me that the case for moving the offence of cowardice into a lower category appears to be made out. It is surely a most significant fact that no one, whatever his experience of war, is to be found to stand up and say that by preserving the penalty of death as a possible punishment for those guilty of this offence you are causing people to exhibit courage that they would not otherwise show, and I am glad of it, for, whatever may be said about the horrors of war, it is, after all, a fine thing that by the common
experience and consent of the British people, after what the British people have passed through in these late years, the thing that keeps the British soldier to his duty is not the fear of being shot by his own comrades if he fails to show courage.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): The situation has been made more clear and simple by the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon), whom we are all glad to see back. We have the question narrowed down to cowardice and nothing else. Speaking on behalf of the Government, we are only too ready to deal with the situation from that point of view, but, before doing so, I should like to say a word with regard to the congratulations which we have received from hon. Members opposite. It is always pleasant to be congratulated, and it is an ungrateful task sometimes to have to point out to those who congratulate you that you are not in any way deserving of the congratulations you receive, and to offer no thanks, because your conduct, and the motives that inspired it, have been entirely misunderstood. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) referred bitterly to the so-called concessions we have made to opinion opposite. It would clear the atmosphere if I said at once that these alterations in the Army Act are not made at all as a concession to public opinion, or to any change of public opinion, and I should like to reassure the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the point as to whether the military members of the Army Council were in favour of the changes or not. They have been recommended entirely by the military members. It is upon their unanimous advice that we are bringing these proposals before the Committee. In effect, they are to remove from the Act certain Sections which have hitherto cumbered it and have not been of any real service in carrying out the purposes of the Act or maintaining discipline in the Army. They have been removed because they were useless, because they were not practicable, and because to a large extent it was realised that their presence led to misunderstanding as to the object for which the death penalty is maintained, and assisted those who were inclined to make mischievous propaganda—I am not referring to any hon. Members opposite,
but to an entirely different type of agitation from the Communist party—out of the presence of some of these Sections. That is the reason why they have been removed, because the military members of the Army Council, and the civil members as well, feel convinced that the discipline of the Army will not in any way be endangered by removing them. In that view we have the co-operation and agreement both of the Air Force and of the Admiralty.
The hon. Member for Tottenham North (Mr. R. Morrison), who always figures on these occasions and who made, as usual, a very interesting and suggestive speech, asked first and foremost for any evidence that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. That same question was put more forcibly by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley, who defied anyone to say the presence of the death penalty was any deterrent to a man committing the crime of running away in battle or that it was in any way necessary to maintain discipline. It is obvious that no Member, especially no ex-service Member, would like to use the words the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempted to put into someone's mouth and say, "My fellow soldiers, the people who served with me, or under me, were only kept to their posts by the fear of being shot if they ran away." That is not a pleasant statement to make, and from a debating point of view the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it in the most disagreeable form possible and in words which no one would like to use. But I think it is equally true that there is hardly a military Member of the House who has had long experience of military discipline and warfare who will not say it is the prevalent opinion of all ranks that the continuance of the death penalty is necessary for the maintenance of discipline in time of war.
The hon. Member for Tottenham North referred more than once, as did the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), to the higher command, and the suggestion is always put forward that it is the old officers, the retired generals sitting at home, and they alone, who desire the retention of the death penalty. Consider the state of mind in a battalion, in a company or in a platoon, among, not the officers but the men, when they see one man whom they all knew to be a shirker and a coward—and everyone realises
that there must exist characters of that kind in any vast concourse of people—after having deliberately let down his comrades, turned tail and deserted his post and placed them in the greatest possible danger, going happily down to the rear the next morning to be tried and sentenced to penal servitude, a man no doubt to whom penal servitude has little terror, a man of criminal antecedents who has betrayed his comrades and is leaving them to face greater dangers while he is going to complete safety, r think the greatest and the strongest feeling in favour of the retention of the death penalties in those circumstances would come, not from the upper ranks, but from the men themselves. It has been found, in forces where the death penalty has not been exacted for crimes of this kind, that the men took the law into their own hands and dealt with a situation of that kind in a way they thought just and fair, either upon the spot or by waiting until the next action, and then carrying out their own rude justice. That may have been just, but I am sure no one would admit that that is a solution of the question.
The hon. Member for East Middlesbrough (Miss Wilkinson) pressed very strongly for allowing these things to be considered in the cold atmosphere of peace and not on the battlefield. Under the existing law, they are examined far from the seat of war. They are examined by one authority after another. They are examined in a quiet Government office by legal experts. All that series of examinations has to be gone through before any sentence is carried out. The suggestion that they should be postponed until after the Armistice is one which I am sure the hon. Member will agree on reflection no one could possibly entertain. The sole object of carrying out the sentence is to maintain and strengthen discipline during the war, and it would be worse than folly, it, would be wicked, to carry them out after the war was over when no purpose whatever could be served, except that of revenge. After all, the object of every form of punishment in every legal system, is not to punish people for being wicked but for being dangerous. There are many people who never come within the law, who never commit any breach of the law, but who are among the most wicked people in the world. If they do
not interfere with their fellow beings in a way that leaves them open to danger, there is no right to interfere with them.
The question of moral turpitude which the hon. Member for Tottenham North referred to does not arise. It is a question of the harm that may be done to the community. During the War, at one time it was made a crime for which people could be sent to prison to take matches into a munitions factory. Some careless young employé, some girl perhaps under 20, forgetting the importance of that rule, would take a box of matches into a munitions factory. No moral turpitude whatever was involved in it, and yet people were sent to prison for doing it, and rightly, because it was only by putting upon them some terrible penalty that you could make people realise the seriousness of the act they were carrying out. In the same way, in time of war, when one man's action may betray so many others and may lead to such great disaster, you attach a penalty to it such as we are asking the Committee to pass to-day.
The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) spoke of the record of the Labour party with regard to this matter and what they had done when in office. He defended them for refusing to abolish the death penalty and for turning down an Amendment that was moved when they were in office on the ground that the whole matter was then being gone into and that they had set up a Commission to inquire into it. But how did that Commission report? Did it report in favour of abolishing the death penalty? Certainly not. It reported strongly in favour of its retention. Therefore, if the hon. Member is logical, he must surely admit that if his excuse at that time for not abolishing it was the existence of the Commission, the only result would be that he would have stood by the recommendation of that Commission next year and again refused to abolish it.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does the hon. Gentleman really mean to say that Governments always accept the recommendations of Commissions?

Mr. COOPER: No, they do not, but, if the reason for not doing a certain thing is that you have set up a Com-
mission, that is not a very good defence for refusing to carry out their proposals. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who feels strongly upon all humanitarian subjects, said he would not vote for the original Amendment because, while in favour of the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice, he would like to see it retained for desertion. That argument was largely answered by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, who showed that it is impossible to distinguish between cowardice and desertion and to weigh in the balance the evil of the two acts. The answer, however, was unnecessary because the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon really answered himself when he said that the retention of the death penalty might be necessary in time of great crisis. That is the whole case for the death penalty. When everything is going well, when victory is following upon victory, when your Army is advancing, when the spirits of the men are up and the moral is sound these cases do not occur, or if one man loses his nerve the matter is of no immediate importance and can probably be overlooked. The moments of great danger are the only moments when the retention of the death penalty is necessary. If the hon. Member admits as much as that, I do not see how he can ever support the abolition of the death penalty.
I have been asked and challenged by many Members opposite to define cowardice. Of course, it is impossible to define cowardice. It is very difficult to define anything, but many things we cannot define we all can recognise when we see them. Although I think it is a rare thing, we can see a coward and know him. Though I am not prepared to give an actual definition, my understanding of the meaning of the word differs profoundly from that which seems to be held by my hon. and gallant. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall), when he says that many a man would hesitate to condemn another man for cowardice, knowing in his heart that he felt just as much a coward himself. What a man feels in his heart has nothing to do with the subject. The man who is most likely to feel the greatest terrors in his heart and yet walks on is often the bravest man. This story is told of a senior officer. A subaltern, shortly before an
action commenced. seeing this officer nervous, hesitating, said, "Why, Colonel, I believe you are afraid." The Colonel replied, "'I am afraid, and if you were half as much afraid as I am you would turn your horse and ride to the rear." Any further definition is really impossible.
Why do we retain the death penalty Because as long as we have an army, it must be a disciplined army. We have heard some denouncements of the horrors of war. With all of these I agree completely, but if you have an army—no hon. Member will disagree with me in this—you must have discipline. The better the discipline, the better the army. We believe that in certain circumstances, rare as they may be, the retention of the death penalty is essential for the retention of the discipline of the forces, because the action of one man may produce, not the defeat of a small company or of a platoon, but the defeat of the whole army. We have heard a, great deal of modern psychology this afternoon. There is a branch of that subject which has been called mob psychology. One of the best known factors of that is, that any emotion is contagious and no emotion is more contagious than fear. One man by fear can lead a dozen after him, a dozen who would never have gone before. We believe that while it is no grateful task for anybody to have to defend the retention of one of the many horrors of war, we only do so because we believe we are convinced that it is necessary in certain cases to maintain the moral of the army.

Mr. DUNCAN: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether this Regulation exists in the Australian army?

Mr. HARNEY: I only rise to make a few remarks upon the speech we have just heard. I think the House will agree that there may be a difference in the meaning of the word "coward" and that real courage is shown most by those who are tempted to run away, and do not. I have read somewhere a definition of a coward to the effect that a brave man is not one who fears no danger, bat one who shows a noble soul and bravely bears what another shrinks from. I think that is a true definition, but it still leaves untouched the real point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). In my view cowardice is a state of mind
for which we are not responsible. If it could be shown that the death penalty for acts of cowardice would create a noble soul that was not there before, then something could be said for it. It was said by the Financial Secretary to the War Office that it was impossible to draw a distinction between cowardice and desertion. I would submit that it might be put in this way. As long as your cowardice is accompanied by some overt act, such as desertion, for which a person can fairly be held to be responsible, the penalty might be applied, but when cowardice stands alone, not accompanied by anything that indicates that a person can control it, it should not fall within the category of cowardice.

Mr. E. BROWN: I wish to give two practical answers to the Financial Secretary to the War Office. He has rightly raised the issue of the danger of the man who is a coward. May I point out to him, that in the ease of the individual who may turn his back towards the enemy the decision to inflict the death penalty is not waited for. The man in charge of the platoon or the company, or whatever it is, in war takes the law into his own hands, and the Financial Secretary to the War Office must, of course, know this, and some of us, unfortunately, have seen it done. There is no need to wait for the death penalty until after the unfortunate individual has been sent to court-martial. The officer responsible takes the law into his own hands. In the last war he took the law into his own hands.
The other class of case to which I want to refer is that which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) when he talked about "a break" on a large scale. My answer about the individual case of a soldier who is seized by cowardice and retreats in front of the enemy applies in the ease of a large "break." For instance, there was no more difficult period in the late war, except the actual break in 1918, than the period two months after that, when the Germans made another attack. There must be many Members in this House who were in charge of companies, platoons or battalions who know perfectly well that orders were given to machine gun corps that if any men were found deserting their posts they were to be shot down. That is to
say, the death penalty was to be executed not by courts-martial but by those responsible for discipline in the field. With regard to cowardice, I think the case has fully been made out and that the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in his most able speech, has not met this point, because he must know that in individual cases or for a

"break" on a large scale, steps would be taken by those in the field to execute the penalty, whether it be death or otherwise.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 119.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[5.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remnant, Sir James


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Robinson, sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ropner, Major L.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Storry-Deans, R.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Clayton, G. C
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cope, Major William
Looker, Herbert William
Waddington, R.


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Drewe, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Withers, John James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Land (Streatham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor




Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Purcell, A. A.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briant, Frank
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stewart J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Strauss, E. A.


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Gardner, J. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Maxton, James
Whiteley, W


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, Rt. Hon. Win, (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenall, T.
Murnin, H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.
Smith.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 107; Noes, 199.

Division No. 72.]
AYES.
[5.51 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Purcell, A. A.


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Scurr, John


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shinwell, E.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Snell, Harry


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Thome, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Gardner, J. P.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gillett, George M
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Groves, T.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Whiteley, W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wright, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)

Smith.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fraser, Captain Ian
Nuttall, Ellis


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Penny, Frederick George


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Ganzoni, sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gates, Percy
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remnant, Sir James


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ropner, Major L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hartington, Marquess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brooke, Brigadier General C. R. I.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Savery, S. S.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzar, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Huntingfield, Lord
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jephcott, A. R.
Storry-Deans, R.


Christle, J. A.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clarry, Reginald George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Loder, J. de V.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cooper, A. Duff
Long, Major Eric
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major William
Looker, Herbert William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Couper, J. B.
Lougher, Lewis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Watts, Dr. T.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, Ian
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Drewe, C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Withers, John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Margesson, Captain D.
Womersley, W. J.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nelson, Sir Frank

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 26, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) In section seven, for the word 'death' there shall be substituted the words 'penal servitude.'
I should have liked to traverse a few of the arguments used by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, but, as I understand that the discussion on the subject is to be confined to the discussion
on the first Amendment, I do not propose to do so, and shall content myself by formally moving my Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 211.

Division No. 73.]
AYES.
[6.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.


Ammon, Charles George
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Purcell, A. A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bowerman, Rt. Hon, Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shinwell, E.


Briant, Frank
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sitch, Charles H.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cove, W. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawrence, Susan
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lawson, John James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Duncan, C.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gardner, J. P.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah.


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Greenall, T.
Morris, R. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fermoy, Lord


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fielden, E. B.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Atkinson, C.
Christle, J. A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Captain Ian


Balniel, Lord
Clayton, G. C.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis B.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Ganzoni, Sir John


Benn, sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gates, Percy


Betterton, Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cope, Major William
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Briggs, J. Harold
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Brittain, Sir Harry
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hartington, Marquess of


Buckingham, Sir H.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Burman, J. B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Drewe, C.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hills, Major John Waller


Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hilton, Cecil


Cassels, J. D.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. C)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Huntingfield, Lord
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Strauss, E. A.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Styles, Captain H. W.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montross)
Nelson, Sir Frank
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Tasker, R. Inigo.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oakley, T.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Jephcott, A. R.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Perring, Sir William George
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Knox, Sir Alfred
Price, Major C. W. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waddington, R.


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Livingstone, A. M.
Remnant, Sir James
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lodor, J. de V.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Long, Major Eric
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Looker, Herbert William
Ropner, Major L.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lougher, Lewis
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Watts, Dr. T.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Salmon, Major I.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wiggins, William Martin


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


MacIntyre, Ian
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


McLean, Major A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sandon, Lord
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Savery, S. S.
Withers, John James


Macquisten, F. A.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Wolmer, Viscount


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Malone, Major P. B.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smithers, Waldron



Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Captain Bowyer and Mr. Penny.

Mr. GARDNER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, at the end, to add the words:
(5) In sub-section (1) of section twelve the words 'if he committed such offence on active service, or under orders for active service, be liable to suffer death or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned, and if he committed such offence under any other circumstances,' shall be omitted.

In accordance with the arrangement agreed to, I formally move the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 218.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[6.9 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lee, F.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenall, T.
Lowth, T.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William


Baker, Walter
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Groves, T
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barnes, A.
Grundy, T. W.
March, S.


Batey, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Maxton, James


Bondfield, Margaret
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hardie, George D.
Morris, R. H.


Briant, Frank
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hayday, Arthur
Murnin, H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, G. H.
Palin, John Henry


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Compton, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Connolly, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Purcell, A. A.


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ritson, J.


Day, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Duncan, C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Scrymgeour, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Scurr, John


Gardner, J. P.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snell, Harry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wellock, Wilfred



Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Paling.


NOES


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nuttall, Ellis


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Oakley, T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perring, Sir William George


Atkinson, C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pilcher, G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gates, Percy
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remnant, Sir James


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandon, Lord


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bull, Rt. Hon. sir William James
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Savery, S. S.


Burman, J. B.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shaw, Lt.-Col A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cassels, J. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.C.)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Christle, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Strauss, E. A.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stylos, Captain H. W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Lister, Culiffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Livingstone, A. M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cooper, A. Duff
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cope, Major William
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Couper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lougher, Lewis
Waddington, R.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacIntyre, Ian
Watts, Dr. T.


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacMillan, Captain H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wiggins, William Martin


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Drewe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Womersley, W. J.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fielden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Ford, Sir P. J.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Glauses 5 (Amendment of s. 115 of the Army Act), 6 (Amendment of s. 177 of the Army Act), 7 (Substitution of "Brigadier" for "colonel commandant"), 8 (Repeal of references to warrant officers holding honorary commissions), and 9 (Application to Air Force) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 80 of Army Act.)

"At the end of sub-section (1) of section eighty of the Army Act (which relates to the mode of enlistment and attestation) the following sub-section shall be added: —
The general conditions of the contract to be entered into shall include a stipulation that the recruit shall not be liable, nor shall it be lawful in pursuance of this Act to call upon such recruit, to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state, of emergency exists."—[Mr. George Hall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The subject of this Clause has been considered on several occasions but, although concessions have been, made in the matter of capital punishment, no concession has been made in the very important matter raised by this new Clause. The purpose of the Clause is quite clear. It does not seek to interfere with any powers existing at the moment for dealing with difficulties during a case of emergency. It is not only the duty of the soldier but of every citizen to assist in the maintenance of order in such circumstances. It should also be made clear that the Clause does not propose to curtail any of the powers which are at present present possessed by the civil authorities; but we do ask that it should be made quite clear to the recruit, when he joins the Army, that he is not to be called upon to take part in any industrial dispute, or to take duty in aid of the civil power in connection with a
trade dispute, or to perform, in consequence of a trade dispute, any civil or industrial duty customarily performed by a civilian in the course of his employment. In other words, the purpose of the Clause is to provide that a soldier shall not be called upon to "blackleg" his fellows during industrial trouble.
For the soldier it can be said that, if there is one thing that he dislikes more than another, it is to be called upon to do something other than his job of soldiering and to be mixed up with any trade dispute in any way. We do not desire in any way to attempt to persuade the soldier not to do his job, but we are anxious to avoid, if possible, the unpleasant duties which soldiers sometimes find themselves called upon to do. We must remember that almost all the men who join the fighting forces come from working-class homes and were trade unionists before they joined the Army. By the acceptance of this Clause Parliament would lay it down definitely that the State in all industrial disputes should always be impartial as between the two sides. It can be said that in no country in the world are the masses of the citizens as law-abiding as are the citizens of this country. The best evidence of that is that during almost every emergency the citizens come to the assistance of the civil power. If we look back into the history of the last hundred years we find that the military authorities have seldom been called in during industrial disputes. Where they were called in, the action almost always led to disastrous results; in almost every case it stiffened the opposition of the workmen engaged in the dispute, and it left a very bad feeling behind it, especially in such cases as Featherstone, Peterloo, and later, Llanelly and Tonypandy.
During the 1926 stoppage, that long and terrible struggle, on no single occasion were the military authorities called in to intervene. That speaks well for the country. I do not think it could be said that such a thing could happen in any other country in the world when faced with such a dispute as that of 1926. All this bears out my statement that the civil authorities are capable of dealing with all these matters. I know that in some instances police have been imported into certain districts. Where that occurred difficulty at once arose; there was con-
siderably more trouble because of the importation of strangers than there would have been had the districts been left to the ordinary police. We must also remember that the civil authorities have additional powers under the Trade Disputes Act of last year. Under that Act the police can prevent huge demonstrations of men marching from place to place. They can prevent large meetings. The powers of picketing are so strengthened that very few people can escape the law in that connection. What is more important is that the discipline amongst trade unionists themselves is very much better than it was previously. I know of no trade union leader who deliberately advocates the interference with individuals or the breaking down of property—what one might regard as smashing methods.
In these circumstances we ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to the Clause. If he refuses to accept it, it will mean that, even when there is no emergency proclaimed, he has the power to order soldiers to take the place of men engaged in an industrial dispute. The case of a soldier is entirely different from that of the ordinary working man. When a workman is asked to take the place of a fellow-workman who is engaged in a dispute, he can obey or disobey. If he disobey, the result is invariably the loss of his job. The position of a soldier or naval man acting under orders is entirely different. If he refuses to take the place of the man engaged in a dispute, he is subject not merely to the loss of his job and not to any ordinary civilian penalties, but to the extreme penalties which may be inflicted on a member of the Forces even in peace time for disobeying the order of his superior officers. When the average man joins the Army he does it to fight the foreign enemies of his country. He is also aware that when a state of national emergency has been proclaimed he must obey the orders of his superior officer. We say that, except in those circumstances, no Government Department should have any right to call upon a man to face drastic punishment if he refuses to carry out the instructions of his officers. For those reasons I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give sympathetic consideration to the Clause, and we trust that he will accept it this year.

Mr. BATEY: I desire to support the Motion. We have two clear objects in view. One is that soldiers shall not be used to "blackleg" in industrial disputes, and the other is that they shall not be used in a dispute even to aid the civil power. During a dispute peace can be best maintained by the police, who know the people. To bring in soldiers is obnoxious not only to trade unionists but to the whole of the working classes. When a dispute occurs the bringing in of soldiers into a locality is like showing a red rag to a bull; it makes things worse instead of better. My experience of the working class generally is that the British workman is a sportsman, whether engaged in games or in fighting a severe industrial fight. He loves fair play, and when he is forced into an industrial fight he ought to be given fair play. To bring soldiers into a dispute is simply loading the dice against the workmen. In such cases soldiers can be used for a double purpose—either to shoot down the workers or to act as "blacklegs." That is neither fair nor British. It is not fair because the Army is paid for by the working classes as well as by the employers of labour.
To bring soldiers into a dispute is an abuse of the Army. It is giving an advantage to the capitalist, for soldiers are never brought in to assist the workmen. This House debated the question of having a Standing Army 241 years ago. It is interesting, in reading the history of those days, to discover that the House did not readily agree to the setting up of a Standing Army. There were Members who argued that a Standing Army and a free constitution could not exist side by side. They mentioned that soldiers once took the Mace from the Table, and they said that that was a very strong argument against a Standing Army. The argument then used in favour of a Standing Army was the danger of invasion. In the King's Speech of those days it was mentioned that the state of affairs abroad was such that
for the present England cannot be safe without a land force.
The House hesitated, however, before agreeing to set up a Standing Army. This House only agreed to the establishment of a Standing Army because of the danger of invasion, and, even then, they did not agree to what the King wanted.
The King wanted an Army of 180,000, but the House would only agree to an Army of 10,000 and an expenditure of £350,000 a year.
I cannot imagine that the Members of the House in those days, thought the time would ever come when the Army would he used for any purpose other than the protection of the country against foreign invasion. I cannot imagine the House of Commons of that time thinking that the Army would ever be used in industrial disputes, and I feel sure that, if they had thought so, it would have been a strong reason to them for objecting altogether to a Standing Army. The hon. Member who moved the proposed new Clause referred to two or three occasions on which soldiers have been used in industrial disputes. I am glad to think that in a long period of years they have not been used in this way very often. It may be argued by the representatives of the War Office that the fact that they have not been used very often in this way is a reason against our proposal, but the fact that they have been so used at all justifies us in putting forward this new Clause. When soldiers are used in industrial disputes, it is only for the purpose of frightening the workers. I remember during 1926 seeing soldiers passing along Oxford Street wearing their tin hats and accompanied by armoured cars, the only object being to frighten the workers.
I ask the Secretary of State to remember that though the Government to-day, with their big majority, may be in a position to reject this proposal, though they may be able to use the Army in industrial disputes, for the double purpose which we have already mentioned, yet, as one can easily see from the feeling in the country, the present Government will not always be in control of the Army. This Government will not always be able to use the Army on behalf of the capitalists. One can see there is going to be a change in this country, and I believe that after the next. Election, the Members sitting on these benches will be on the other side of the House, and this party will be in charge of the Army. The Government have used the Army on behalf of the capitalists, but if we use the Army against the capitalists and on behalf of the workers,
then they will protest that it is not fair. I ask them now to be fair, and to agree that the Army should be left altogether out of the arena of industrial disputes. I ask the Government to agree that soldiers are not to be used either as blacklegs, or for the purpose of fighting the workers. With industry organised as it is to-day, some people think we are nearing an end of industrial disputes, but, considering that there is so much poverty and misery in the country, I believe we shall still see industrial disputes in the future. Before those disputes occur, and while we are able to take a calm view of the question—before the heat and bad temper of the dispute arise—the Government should look at the matter calmly and accept our proposal.

Mr. GROVES: I support the proposed new Clause, as a result of our experiences in the borough which I represent not only during the general strike, but in previous disputes. A very unpleasant experience for us was in 1921 when the railwaymen threatened to cease work, and our railway station was paraded by soldiers with fixed bayonets. Then in the calm moments of peace in industry, we realised what could happen when any Government lost its head at a time when there was a possibility of an industrial dispute. I am very suspicious about the degree of technical training which is being given in this country with regard to recruits for the Air Force and the Army. I suspect that it is not due just to the ordinary march of technical events, but is the result of cool and calculated policy, so that the authorities will be prepared at any given moment to place in industry an equivalent number of men to those displaced whenever an industrial dispute arises.
That being so, I appeal to the Secretary of State to remove the soldiery altogether from this invidious position. Having listened to the whole of this Debate, I am quite prepared to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that nothing is further from his mind than to use soldiers in industrial disputes, but those of us who have read the history of Featherstone realise that sometimes circumstances come into existence, probably without any evil designing on the part of the Secretary of State for War, in which soldiers are so used. Would it
not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to be able to raise a fence—to erect a barrier as it were—which in future will protect his own Department against possible abuses in this respect? During the general strike we had many very interesting Debates in this House with regard to this particular matter. I then pointed out that the introduction of a foreign element called the special constabulary had been responsible for a certain change of psychology in West Ham. We must try to anticipate what may happen in any future dispute. I agree that we cannot look forward to the extinction of industrial disputes. I wish that, by reason and common sense, we were in a position to visualise that day, but it is not with us yet, and we must be prepared to recognise that everything paints to further clashes in industry, be they large or small. We must prepare ourselves for the future according to what has happened in the past. It. is true that in past industrial crises military forces have been used to coerce those members of the working class who ceased work with a definite end in view. This is a constitutionally-governed country and we have no right to use the soldiery on one side in an industrial dispute. No man would defend such a course, and therefore I think it behoves the British Parliament to lay down the condition that there shall not be intervention by military forces at the time of a mere industrial dispute. I am aware that the proposed New Clause excludes the possibility of a state of national emergency. Somehow we on these benches seem to think that military forces should be used at such a moment. Personally, I do not think so.

Mr. BATEY: Nor do I.

Mr. GROVES: The hon. Member supported it. What I am sure of is that in this country we are made of such material that even if we are going through a great psychological anxiety like the general strike, there seems to be little fear that the people will need the physical protection of military forces. Those who went through the 1926 episodes realise that the only way in which the soldiery were used—in the East End anyhow—was to create an impression, to strike forceful attitudes, in order that the convoys should not be affected in their exodus from the docks. That in some
measure can be understood, but it is a different matter if it comes to repeating what took place at the West Ham electricity generating station. I expect I am in order in including naval forces in a general reference to Crown forces in connection with this argument. There, forces of the Crown were sent down, without any consultation with the local authorities, to take charge of the West Ham electricity station. There is no justification for such an action as that. Our men were working there loyally, and performing good service, but because there was a great national dispute these forces were sent in and men who were not competent technicians, in the same sense as our electricians, took over the work there. That is an interference with the ordinary constitutional rights of the industrial classes of this country, and I trust the Secretary of State for War will give us some satisfaction and prove a little more kind to us in this matter than he has been in the previous discussions. I do not expect him to accept the New Clause literally, because it is not his habit to do things like that, but perhaps we can get a tacit understanding that he will use his influence, in the few remaining months of the life of this Government, to get his friends and comrades to agree to, this proposal.

Captain GARRO - JONES: Having listened to the speeches of the Mover and the hon. Members who support this proposed New Clause, I find myself in some difficulty. The New Clause proposes that troops shall not be used in any trade dispute. We all remember that during the discussions on the Trade Disputes Act, this House was quite unable to decide what was a trade dispute. That question, however, is not relevant to the present proposal, because the second part of the proposed New Clause says:
Provided that, in the event of His Majesty declaring by proclamation, in accordance with the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency exists, this stipulation shall not apply so long as such state of emergency exists.
In what cases in recent years have troops been used where a state of emergency has not been declared by His Majesty to exist?

Mr. BATEY: Featherstone.

Mr. JOHN: What about Llanelly?

Captain GARRO-JONES: The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) appealed to the Secretary of State not to allow the use of troops at all in industrial disputes, but that is not what the New Clause proposes. The New Clause will allow the use of troops the moment a state of emergency is declared. In these circumstances I do not see why the Secretary of State for War cannot accept it. I hope, when he is dealing with the Amendment, he will tell us why we cannot vote for an Amendment which prohibits the use of troops unless His Majesty has declared a state of emergency to exist.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The Amendment has been supported in speeches that had very little relevance to it, and the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones), who has just sat down, has fallen into the same fault as those who supported the Amendment. He has quoted a few words of it, and not quoted it quite accurately, and he has not seen that the Amendment is designed to prevent the use of troops to take duty in aid of the civil power. That is a duty which falls upon each one of us. It is a Common Law duty which each one of us, to the best of his ability, is bound to carry out whenever he is called upon, if the civil power does need support; and, of all people in the world, the soldier is not only to be exempted from that duty, but it is to be part of the contract of his employment that he shall not take part, which he would if he were not a soldier, in aid of the civil power. That is not necessarily a time of emergency. Rather illogically, if I may say so, as soon as a time of emergency arises the limitations suggested in the Amendment are no longer to avail, but the mere going to the aid of the civil power is a thing which might arise at any moment, not in an emergency that could be foreseen at all.
Let us take a case. Supposing that trouble arose out of a football match, and not out of a trade dispute, and the civil power, which means, first of all, the attendants on the football ground and the police, were overpowered, and there was a real scrap. It would be the duty of the civil power, in order to protect those who were present—not workmen or employers, but all—to call in the military if necessary to aid them. When the hon. Members who support the Amendment say the
soldiers are never called out except to aid the capitalists, that really is not true, for the capitalist as a rule is not in the street, and it is not his head that is likely to be cracked in the course of a row. It is much more likely that the workers and their relations would be in the street, and, if there was a row, they themselves might suffer; and if the civil power was being overcome, it might well be that the soldiers' only duty would be to support the civil power in protecting those who were in the street at the time. It is wrong to look at this from a class point of view. It is not a class question. It is the duty of all of us, to whatever class we may belong, to go to the aid of the civil power. It is the duty of the soldier to do the same thing, and I have no hesitation in saying that this Amendment cannot be accepted.
There is another branch of the Amendment, namely, that no soldier shall be used to blackleg. No soldier is used to blackleg. Even that prohibition is not to take effect after an emergency is declared. Instances were given of what occurred during the general strike. The soldier was used to protect the food supplies, to see that the life of the nation was carried on, and I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are prepared to say that he should not be used in that case. On whose behalf is he being used? On behalf of the capitalist? Not at all.

Mr. GROVES: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I think the soldiers should not be used. I say it was not necessary that they should be used.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is not the Amendment. The Amendment is to prohibit them being used, and the question I was asking—I do not press the hon. Member to reply, if he prefers to take refuge by replying to a question which I did not ask—was, Was it right or was it not right to see that the food supplies of the nation were to be continued to be supplied to the nation?

Mr. GROVES: It was perfectly right, but you did it in the wrong way.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is another matter. We did it, of course, and we protected the food supplies by troops, and no one was injured by it, not a single man. Not a single rifle was fired, and not a single soldier came into conflict with a civilian, and when the hon.
Member says the soldier was used in the wrong way, I say that the rightness of the way is proved by what I am saying.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I say that it was spectacular.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The food supplies were continued, and no one was a penny the worse. Of course, it is not a job that the soldier likes or that the military authorities put on the soldier if they can possibly avoid it; but there is the liability to go to the aid of the civil power, there is the national necessity of continuing the life of the nation, and as long as those two things exist, it will be impossible to accept this Amendment.

Mr. GROVES: Has it struck the right hon. Gentleman that his argument in favour of the utilisation of the military in aid of the civil authorities dealt with an occasion that actually existed in this country a few years ago at Wembley, when he did not come to the aid of the civil power?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We were not called upon. We do not volunteer. The hon. Member should realise that the military never volunteer, but wait until they are called upon, to execute this disagreeable duty.

Mr. KELLY: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment until listening to the right hon. Gentleman and his suggestion of the use of the military in the event of conditions arising at a football match. I have read reports in recent weeks of something approaching what he called a riot at football matches in certain parts of the country, but I have not heard of anyone suggesting that any of the armed military forces should be called in. I have no doubt there were members of the forces present as spectators at those matches, but the civil force were able to deal with the situation. I submit to the Committee that in industrial disputes the civil force is quite capable of dealing with any situation which may arise, and it is unfair and unjust to the man in the Army that he should be called upon—not asked, but commanded—to take part in an industrial dispute. He has not the opportunity, as other citizens have, of refusing to enter into such a struggle,
but he receives a command from his superior officer that he must go into a particular factory and undertake any piece of work that his commanding officer instructs him to perform. He has no free will at all with regard to it. It is unfair, and it is lowering the position of the members of the Army that they should be called upon to take part in industrial disputes.
The hon. Member seized upon what, with him, I think is a weakness of the Amendment. I would not have put in this proviso at the end of it, because I see no justification at all for the armed forces being called in in an industrial dispute, which means at all times, despite all that was said by the right hon. Gentleman, that they are called in to assist the employers.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS indicated dissent.

Mr. KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. For what other purpose are they called in in an industrial dispute than to assist the employers? I have known of a case where they were called in while the civilians were undertaking the work, but owing to the fear of the superiors, who had lost their heads at a particular moment, these men, who dared not refuse to undertake the work, had to blackleg the rest of their fellows. I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the incidents of 1926. The Amendment deals with industrial disputes that people would not interpret as the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues interpreted the dispute of 1926. I say it is wrong. These men join the forces for certain purposes, and yet when an occasion arises on which it appears to someone at the War Office that they should be called upon to undertake work in the factories, they are asked to perform this work, which they ought never to be compelled to do. Despite the weakness of the Amendment—I wish the latter part of it were not in—I am prepared to vote for it.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The night hon. Gentleman said that I had fallen into a trap, but nothing that he said has released me from that trap. Tie appeared to me to be side-stepping the issue raised by the Amendment, which,
as far as I understand it, seeks to provide that in minor trade disputes, before a state of emergency has been declared, it shall be unlawful to draft in soldiers to do the work which has been done by strikers. I cannot see any objection to that, and when the right hon. Gentleman says that soldiers and civilians are in the same position of being compelled to assist the civil power he is rather losing sight of the fact that civilians are not compelled to assist any one side in an industrial dispute. All that this Amendment asks is that in

trade disputes, before a state of emergency has been declared, soldiers shall not be drafted in to help one side or the other or to help the civil power. Why cannot this Amendment be accepted? I sincerely hope we shall have some less ingenious but more enlightening answer than we have yet had from the right hon. Gentleman, or, speaking for myself, I shall vote for the Amendment.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 117; Noes, 223.

Division No. 75.]
AYES.
[7.0 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Scrymgeour, E.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Bondfield, Margaret
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smillie, Robert


Bromley, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Sullivan, Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Viant, S. P.


Day, Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Dunnico, H.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondde)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Montague, Frederick
Welsh, J. C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Whitelev, W


Gosling, Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Carver, Major W. H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Cassels, J. D.


Atkinson, C.
Briant, Frank
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Briggs, J. Harold
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)


Balniel, Lord
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chapman, Sir S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Christle, J. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Clarry, Reginald George


Bethel, A.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Clayton, G. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Burman, J. B.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Huntingfield, Lord
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurd, Percy A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Cope, Major William
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ropner, Major L.


Couper, J. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn, N.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Salmon, Major I.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Jephcott, A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl.(Renfrew, W.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dixey, A. C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Loder, J. de V.
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Looker, Herbert William
Smithers, Waldron


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Lougher, Lewis
Somervillie, A. A. (Windsor)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Strauss, E. A.


Fermey, Lord
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Fielden, E. B.
MacIntyre, I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Ford, Sir P. J.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Macquisten, F. A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Galbraith, J. F. W
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ganzoni, Sir John
Malone, Major P. B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.
Waddington, R.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morris, R. H.
Watts, Dr. T.


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wells, S. R.


Hamilton, Sir George
Nelson, Sir Frank
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Wiggins, William Martin


Hartington, Marquess of
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Nuttall, Ellis
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur p.
Oakley, T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Hills, Major John Waller
Perring, Sir William George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Pilcher, G.
Wolmer, Viscount


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



Hume, Sir G. H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Penny and Sir Victor Warrender.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act.)

"In Section seventy-six of the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment), after the word 'person,' where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'of not less than eighteen years of age,' and after the word 'may,' where that word first occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'upon production of his birth certificate.'"—[Mr. Dunnico.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. DUNNICO: I should like to ask your guidance, Mr. Hope. There is much in common between the Clause standing in my name and the following
Clause. Is tit possible to take the two together as far as discussion is concerned?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I think that, if there is general agreement, that will be a convenient course, it being understood that there is only one discussion.

Mr. DUNNICO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The substance of the Clause, if not its actual terms, has been moved now for several years. Hitherto the Government have refused to concede the request contained in it, and if to-night
there is nothing original in the Clause or in the speeches supporting it, I hope there will be something original in the Government's reply, and that it will be affirmative rather than negative. The request in the Clause is a very sane, sensible and reasonable one and, on grounds of principle or expediency, there is no real answer to the case. We are simply asking that the procedure governing entrance into the Army shall be brought into line with that governing entrance into any business house or bank, the teaching profession, the Civil Service, the Inns of Court and all professions. I have never been accused of being unduly biased on the side of the defence forces of the country, but I recognise that, under existing conditions, a defence force is necessary and, in view of that, I see no reason why the calling of a soldier should not be as honourable as any other professions. Yet, if the answer of the Minister last year to this request is to be taken seriously, he hardly accepts that view. He gave two reasons for refusing this request. The first was that it was necessary to take recruits under 18 to maintain the band. That is rather a paltry excuse for embarking on so serious a procedure. The other reason he gave was that, if a birth certificate were demanded from the new recruit, it would hinder recruiting. I admit there may be occasions where its production might give certain private domestic information which the applicant would prefer to keep private. That argument, if it be an argument at all, would apply not only to the Army but to every other calling and profession.
I ask the Minister of War whether he would be in favour of exempting applicants for the Civil Service, the teaching profession, the Inns of Court, or a business house from producing their birth certificates, because, if there be an argument against the production of birth certificates on enlistment, there is a far greater argument for exempting those entering the Civil Service from producing their birth certificates than there is for exempting those entering the Army under 18 from doing so. In the first place, the entrant to the Civil Service or a profession has a certain degree of freedom. If he dislikes it, he can retire from it, but the boy under 18 who joins the Army has mortgaged his liberty and
freedom for many years ahead and has really affected his whole future life. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to accept either this Clause or the subsequent Clause. If the Army is to maintain its high position, if the profession of the soldier is to be an honourable one, he ought not to condone lying in the case of a man who gives a false age to enter the Army, but he ought to treat that with severity as in the case of an applicant for entrance to the Civil Service.
I have a large number of statistics dealing with recruiting in the last few years, but I shall not weary the House with them. Roughly speaking, there has been an average of about 2,000 recruits a year under 18 in the past two or three years. The average number of discharges in the last two or three years is, roughly, from 230 to 250. Think of the enormous waste of time and energy, and the anxiety connected with these cases. Although 230 gained their discharge, I wonder how many have been refused. In my own constituency, I had to make several applications to the right hon. Gentleman. What are the circumstances? A boy enlists under the age of 18. He can gain exemption only on compassionate grounds. These compassionate grounds involve frequently a written guarantee that, if the boy is released, he has a situation to which to go. Take my own constituency as an example. There you have widespread industrial depression, and a large number of youths unemployed and partially employed. These youths, living with their parents, have been struck off the unemployment payment registers. In a moment of despair and recklessness they enlist. I apply to the right hon. Gentleman for exemption or discharge, and he asks me to get what is humanly impossible to get, a written declaration that these boys, if they are returned, will be provided with a situation.
Some hon. Members may say that it is far better for a boy to be in the Army than to go back and be unemployed. My reply is that if the Army is to be a real Army, an Army of which we can be proud, and of which a man who enters it can be proud, that Army should not be recruited from boys under 18 who are driven to join by starvation, poverty and misery. If the Army is to maintain its high traditions, if the profession of a
soldier is to be an honourable one—and I hope to live to see the day when armies as we know them will not be necessary—but so long as they are necessary, so long as we have the profession and calling of a soldier, let us see to it that only men are accepted of mature age and sound judgment, who of their own free will give themselves to a calling of which they will have no need to be ashamed in after life. For these reasons, I ask the Secretary of State for War sympathetically to consider the Amendment.

Mr. E. BROWN: I hope the Minister will say something sympathetically of the two Amendments. I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Dunnico) has just said, because all who have been in the Army know that some of the boys are band-boys, and it would be necessary to have an exception to the age of 18 in their case. I agree, however, that there is a strong case that, for normal, serving soldiers, the age of 18 laid clown in the Section ought to be the age, and if boys make a false attestation they ought not to be held to their term of service. I have had five cases of this kind from my own constituency. The right hon. Gentleman always treats these cases with the utmost consideration, care and sympathy. I was not fortunate enough to get all the five out, but I got one out, and, therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. member for Consett that it is humanly impossible to get a guarantee of employment, because in thin case we did.

Mr. DUNNICO: I was dealing with my own particular constituency.

Mr. BROWN: I understood it to be a general argument. I apologise to the hon. Member. In numbers of cases, it is possible to get the guarantee. The, onus should be on the enlisting authorities to see that the birth certificate is produced, and to see that boys are not taken under the age of 18. This is a serious matter in time of war. It was my misfortune to serve in a platoon in the early days of the War with a boy who enlisted as 18, but was only 16. He was a fine, upstanding fellow and a perfect soldier so long as we were in England, but overseas he had a trip or two to the trenches and crocked up, and had to be sent home. It ought not to be possible for that kind of thing to occur. Very often these lads go off in a fit of temper; there is a
dispute at home, and in a moment of temper they rush out and enlist, and as they know that they cannot get in under 18, they swear that they are 18, although they know that they are under a penalty for making a false attestation. It must be one of the most difficult tasks the Minister and his assistants have to face when they get letters from parents or Members of this House seeking the release of boys on compassionate grounds, and when, either because they cannot prove that they are the sole support of their parents, or because no guarantee can be given that employment is waiting for them, they have to be refused release. Since 18 is laid down as the age for the normal serving soldier, the production of a birth certificate should be necessary—some other arrangement should be made, but if that is technically impossible, the boy should be allowed to be taken out on demand by the parents, except when they enlist for the purpose of the band.

Miss LAWRENCE: The case is a simple one. Is a boy of 16 mature enough in mind to make so momentous a choice as joining the Army? At 16 one is not mature enough, either physically or mentally. One's convictions are not formed at the age of 16. There are a great many friends of mine who, during the War, were conscientious objectors. There were very few who had these convictions at the age of 16. A boy may enlist in the Army, and a little later may find that his whole conscience is against the calling which he has undertaken. Again, a boy of 16 cannot judge whether he has the physical hardihood to qualify for a soldier. We spent the earlier part of this afternoon hearing that the death penalty for cowardice was necessary for the Army. The Committee has agreed that that penalty for failure in physical courage is necessary for the existence of the Army. How can a boy of 16 know whether he possesses that quality, which of all others is necessary for a. soldier? An immature choice may mean the unfortunate young man, who has mistaken his capability, having to suffer the penalty which the Committee has reaffirmed. Where a young man enlists with the consent and knowledge of his parents, it may be said that his parents are competent judges of his character, but I would remind the Committee that quite a considerable number of boys are sent into the Army from
either Poor Law or industrial schools, sent in, that is, by people who cannot have the knowledge of the boy's character and capacity that the parents might have.
It is a very easy thing to get into the Army. What a desperately difficult thing it is to get out! I think the Committee does not realise how difficult it is. I am going to give a story of what happened in my constituency, a story of how we were successful in getting a boy out of the Army. There was a widow in my constituency who fell into very bad circumstances, and whose children were taken over by the guardians. She was later, however, able to make a good home for the children, and she got the young children back. The eldest boy had been sent to the Nautical School at Portishead, and, when she tried to get him back, she was told that he had been enlisted in the Army at the age of 16. She did all she could; she wrote to the captain, she wrote to the colonel, and she wrote to the War Office. She went herself to the War Office, protesting that she had never given her consent to the enlistment. One and all, the captain, the colonel, and the War Office, refused to allow the boy to go home. She came to me three days before the day fixed for the boy's sailing, and told me the story. I rang up and wrote to the War Office, and I received by telephone and by letter an answer that, unless I would guarantee £20, the boy would sail for India in three days. I have not £20 to throw away for every deserving case in my constituency, but in this case I backed my own judgment, and I told the War Office that I would pay the £20 if the enlistment proved legal. The War Office agreed to make inquiries, and about a month later I received a letter from the War Office saying that they had now looked into the matter and found that the enlistment was not legal, and that the boy could go home.
That is a perfectly true tale. If that widow lady had not gone to her Member at the eleventh hour, and if the Member had not taken the sporting chance, the boy would have gone out to India, and the family would have been left without him. But for the cutting-out expedition which I and the widow conducted against the War Office, he would quite illegally have been sent to India, That woman
could not, in spite of all her letters and all her going to the War Office, have got the boy out if she had not had the judgment to go to somebody who is accustomed to deal with these matters. There are many cases where parents desire to get their boys out. I am afraid there are a good many cases of children in Poor Law and industrial schools who are sent into the Army in the ordinary course of events. Some boards of guardians refuse to do it; Stepney has refused, and they have refused rightly, because children of that age are too young to make such a choice. The Government ought to be ashamed of recruiting the Army from Poor Law and industrial schools. You do not want men in the Army who are unfitted for the Army, and neither boards of guardians not the Minister can tell whether a boy at 16 is of the stuff to make a soldier. I therefore hope that the Government will consider this question, and will at long last take these arguments into consideration.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: There is an aspect of this matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. In Section 76 of the Army Act are the words:
Provided that the Army Council in special cases or classes of ease may be order direct that where a boy has enlisted before attaining the age of 18 the period of 12 years shall be reckoned from the day on which he attains the age of 18.
This raises another side of this issue which points, I think, to a great injustice. A person of mature years is entitled to his discharge after 12 years' service, but in the case, let us say, of a boy of 16½ who has enlisted in the Army, the 12 years' service does not start from the day of his enlistment. He may put in 1½ years—he does not necessarily do so—until his eighteenth birthday, and only then does his 12 years' service start. I think I observe the Secretary of State shake his head with reference to that statement, and I shall be glad if he will correct me if I am wrong.
Inasmuch as I am responsible, with other friends, for the next Clause, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two regarding that. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham North (Miss Lawrence) has said, the point is a very simple one. It is: who ought to be responsible for determining, in the case of a boy of immature age, the career
which he is to follow? I am sure hon. Members opposite would not dream of allowing their children to choose a career without reference to them, to determine the whole of their future upon the impulse of a moment, and I do not think we ought to allow even the children of the working class to make such decisions unless they have the consent of their parents. As everyone knows, occasions arise quite frequently where parental authority has to be exercised in regard to a boy's conduct, and in a moment of pique or of petulance the boy decides to join the Army. That is not a matured and deliberate decision. It is an impetuous decision. But, nevertheless, it determines the boy's life for the following 12 years, and, as I think, for the following 13½ years, if he happens to be only 16½ years when he joins. It may very well be that the boy's action may occasion a good deal of financial loss to the family. It is quite possible that the boy has been kept by his parents at a secondary school until he is 17 years of age, and he may have cost them a good deal of money, for his maintenance, at least, if not for school fees. Then, suddenly, he is attracted by the idea of going into the Army; possibly some older friend of his has already joined, and persuades him to enlist, and all the sacrifice which the parents have made is lost. I think the parents ought to have a determining voice as to his career until the bay reaches the age of his maturity, and it is because of our desire to reserve to the parents the final decision in this matter that I have put down the Clause which stands in my name. The object of it is this: where a boy has enlisted before the age of 18 the parent, if he or she thinks fit, can claim the discharge of the boy on the ground that he has made the decision contrary to the desire of the parents and at a time when he is not fit to make a final decision himself. For these reasons I propose to move presently the Clause which stands in my name, but I would be very glad meantime if the right hon. Gentleman would let me know the War Office reading of the Clause or portion of the Clause which I have read out.

Mr. CONNOLLY: There is one point with regard to the release of these boys which has not been touched upon and on which I would like to say a few words,
because it makes it practically impossible to get any of these lads out of the Army if their commanding officers decide that they cannot be released. Not only has the application to be made upon compassionate grounds and accompanied by a guarantee that work has been found for the boy, with the wages which the boy will receive stated, but the commanding officer has to be satisfied that the boy will be better able to assist his parents in the job which they have found for him than he will be if he stays in the Army. Only if the commanding officer is satisfied on that point will he recommend the release of the boy, and in certain cases that makes it practically impossible for the boy to be released. Quite recently I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a case in which the release of a boy was refused on the ground that the commanding officer was not satisfied that the boy would be of more use to his parents if he were at home than if he were in the Army. To my mind it would be more honest if the authorities were to reduce the age of enlistment. As has been pointed out from these benches, it is not honest to enlist a boy at 17½f age and not start to count his pensionable service until he is 18 years of age. I passed when I was 16, and I had a cousin, killed in France before he was 18 years of age, who had joined up at the age of 16 years and eight months. It is quite possible for a boy to join up and fulfil all the requirements of the service before he is 17 years of age, and I think it would be more honest to reduce the age and give the boys all to which they are entitled than to penalise them in regard to the term of their pensionable service. My principal object, however, has been to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the great disability which is occasioned by the right of veto which is vested in the commanding officer of the boy's regiment.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal, if I may, with both Clauses at the same time, but first I will let the Committee know what is the existing practice, because quite obviously they are not quite familiar with it. If a boy enlists when he is under 17 it is the practice, if his parents desire him to be discharged, to give him his discharge without any inquiry except as to proof of age. There is no question of compas-
sionate grounds or any other grounds. There is no question of holding a boy between 16 and 17, and so the questions which the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Miss Lawrence) asked as to whether he was sufficiently matured to make up his mind to adopt the Army as a career or not really do not arise.

Miss LAWRENCE: In the case I gave, in which I showed that it took such a long time to get a boy out, the boy was under 17.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Then his age could not have been known. That fact was not known to the War Office. The hon. Member was kind enough to remind me of the grounds upon which that case was decided. I had a vague recollection of it; I remember dealing with it. That was undoubtedly a mistake. It was a mistake in law, because it was thought at the time by the recruiting officer that the Board—it was not a board of guardians, but, I think, it was a Scottish local authority—it was thought that this particular Scottish local authority stood in loco parentis to the boy and could give a parent's consent. After the hon. Member had called attention to the facts, and after investigation, it was found that the supposition was wrong, and that the particular local authority had not the power which it was thought they had, and which boards of guardians have, of giving consent as if they were the boy's parents. That was a particular case, concerning a particular local authority, and a wrong view taken by a recruiting officer. As soon as the facts were made known, the mother had no difficulty in getting the boy out—[Interruption.] No, as soon as we knew what the facts were we did not attempt to hold the boy. If enlisted under 17 years of age, the recruit is allowed to go. If over 17 and under 18, the recruit is held, unless there are compassionate grounds upon which his release can be claimed. That is not unreasonable, as I think hon. Members will see if they consider the matter for a moment. The State goes to very considerable expense with a recruit, teaching him, training him, feeding him, clothing him and so on, for, perhaps, two or three months, and, if the boy says he is 18 and if he looks 18—

Mr. MORGAN-JONES: But what about the certificate?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will deal with the certificate in a moment. If he looks 18 and has been taken into the Army, having mis-stated his age, it would not be right, after the State had been put to the expense of £20, £30, £40 or £50—well, £30 perhaps—that then the boy should leave. That might happen time after time if there were no deterrent. What is done is this. If the parents can show that their need is great, and that at home the boy could get employment and earn more money, which would be at their disposal, than the money he could allot to them out of his Army pay, then, upon compassionate grounds, the boy is not held. I am sure that every Member, or nearly every other Member in the House, has had some such case as that, and knows that that is how we deal with them. I should be willing to dispense with having to investigate these cases, but at the same time they are considered sympathetically and with a desire to do justice—

Mr. DUNNICO: Your reply is dealing simply with the economic side. A much more important side of the question is as to the boy being put into a calling for which he is absolutely unsuitable and against the wishes of his parents. That is the main issue.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I cannot deal with the subject all at once. Let me work through the economic side to the side with which the hon. Member wishes me to deal. To start with, the boy comes to us because he wants to come. Nobody forces him to offer himself as a recruit, and even after he has first thought of coming he has plenty of opportunity before he has finished with his medical examination, and so on, of changing his mind. But, anyhow, he does come. To say that he ought to bring his parents' consent is only to say that we ought to do what we do now when we know the boy is under 18, as in the cases where we enlist boys as drummers and buglers and where we enlist boys—I think the number is 400 a year—to be trained in the engineering schools. There is a waiting list of these boys; they are keen to come, and they come with their parents' consent. Those
are boys whom we know are under 18, and we do not knowingly take a boy under 18 without his parents' consent.
Take the case of a boy who is, in fact, under 18 years of age, although we do not know it, and who has of his own willing accord gone to the recruiting office to be enlisted. He is looked over, and if he is obviously under 18 years of age he is rejected. The hon. Member asks me why the War Office do not protect themselves by asking for a birth certificate. I have frequently heard protests made against the production of birth certificates in connection with National Health Insurance. In those cases objections have been raised, and I know why. I do not want to start an inquisition into the whole life of every recruit who applies for enlistment. If it were absolutely necessary, I should have to face the disadvantage of taking that course, but it is not absolutely necessary. The number of cases where hardship arises from boys joining the Army under 18 years of age is quite infinitesimal, and the system under which we now operate of letting those boys leave the Army where compassionate grounds exist meets the justice of the case. For these reasons, I cannot accept the new Clause. The proviso which has been referred to in Section 76 is intended for the purpose of enlisting the drummer boy, the bugler boy and the tradesmen, and it is not used far any other purpose. That Section does not give us any power to deal with boys who are under 18 years of age, and it is only used for those whom we know are under 18 years of age.

Mr. MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is only in cases where economic circumstances warrant it that the boy under 18 years of age is released. When the parent supplies the commanding officer or the War Office with definite proof that the boy was under 18 years of age when he enlisted, and when the parents state that they do not desire the boy to remain in the Army, I think the War Office should release him. If they do not do so, it undoubtedly means that the enlistment age is not 18, and a boy can enlist under 18 years of age, irrespective of his parents' consent. The War Office should allow a boy under 18 to be taken out of the Army quite irrespective of compassionate grounds. I have had to deal with several of these cases. I have always found that the Secretary of State for War has met my
cases very fairly, and quite spontaneously. I give him every credit for doing that. At the same time, I think it should be laid down specifically that a boy under 18 years of age who has enlisted because of the glamour of Army life put before him by one of his churns should be released if his parents apply for his release. I do not blame the recruiting officer or the War Office, but I do not think the War Office ought to hold on to the boy if his parents desire his release. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will decide to release boys who have joined under 18 years of age when he is requested to do so by their parents, quite irrespective of the ground that the boy can bring more money to his home from employment in civil life than by continuing to serve in the Army.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Perhaps I may be allowed to remind the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that, if a parent applies for the release of a boy within three months of the boy's enlistment, he being under 18 years of age, they can get him out of the Army by paying £20. That is an average figure which does not more than compensate the State for the expense. The hon. Member for Govan seems to forget that there are a good many cases of parents who desire their boys to leave the Army, but the boys themselves do not wish to do so.

Mr. MACLEAN: In ordinary circumstances, parents have control over their children until they reach the age of 21 years.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it not a fact that the commanding officer has to determine whether the boy is likely to contribute more to the family by employment in civil life than by continuing in the Army service? The commanding officer may very much desire to retain the services of a boy on account of some special qualification, and he may be of the opinion that the boy is likely to earn more for his parents in the Army than if he were allowed to go to the job specified upon his application form. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us an opinion upon that point.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is there any Government service which a man can join without having to produce his birth certificate?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 207.

Division No. 76.]
AYES.
[7.54 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smillie, Robert


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sullivan, Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Harry
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Dennison, R.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Wellock, Wilfred


Gillett, George M.
March, S.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Westwood, J.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wright, W.


Griffith, F. Kingsley
Potts, John S.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Atkinson, C.
Christie, J. A.
Gates, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Goff, Sir Park


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clayton, G. C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bennett, A. J.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bethel, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bird, E. R (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cope, Major William
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Couper, J. B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn., N.)
Hamilton, Sir George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Briant, Frank
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hartington, Marquess of


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brown-Lindsay, Major H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major John Waller


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hilton, Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dixey, A. C.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon, Sir S. J. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Drewe, C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Eden, Captain Anthony
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Burman, J. B.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Huntingfield, Lord


Carver, Major W. H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hurd, Percy A.


Cassels, J. D.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Nuttall, Ellis
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Oakley, T.
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Jephcott, A. R.
Pennefather, Sir John
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Penny, Frederick George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Tasker, R Inigo.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Perring, Sir William George
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Pilcher, G.
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitcheli-


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Knox, Sir Alfred
Raine, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lamb, J. Q.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waddington, R.


Loder, J. de V.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Long, Major Eric
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Looker, Herbert William
Rice, Sir Frederick
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Lougher, Lewis
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ropner, Major L.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Rye, F. G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, S. R.


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
White, Lieut.-Col. sir G. Dairymple-


MacIntyre, Ian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wiggins, William Martin


McLean, Major A.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mac Robert, Alexander M.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Malone, Major P. B.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Savery, S. S.
Withers, John James


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Womersley, W. J.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wragg, Herbert


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm[...]eland)
Captain Margesson and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.

New CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 76 of Army Act.)

The following proviso shall be the Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):

Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to

this effect being made by a parent or guardian.—[Mr. Paling.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. Paling.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 206.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[8.2 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Lawson, John James


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, F.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Lowth, T.


Baker, Walter
Greenall, T,
Lunn, William


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Barnes, A.
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Batey, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Groves, T.
March, S.


Bondfield, Margaret
Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Murnin, H.


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Bromley, J.
Hardie, George D
Palin, John Henry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayday, Arthur
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Purcell, A. A.


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Connolly, M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scurr, John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Dennison, R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Dunnico, H.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kennedy, T.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kirkwood, D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, George
Smillie, Robert


Gillett, George M.
Lawrence, Susan
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Snell, Harry
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wright, W.


Sullivan, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sutton, J. E.
Wellock, Wilfred



Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Welsh, J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Perring, Sir William George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pilcher, G.


Atkinson, C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Price, Major C. W. M.


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Raine, Sir Walter


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bennett, A. J.
Hamilton, Sir George
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bethel, A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanc, Stretford)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Ropner, Major L.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Harrison, G. J. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hartington, Marquess of
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briant, Frank
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Hills, Major John Walter
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Sandon, Lord


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Burman, J. B.
Huntingfield, Lord
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hurst, Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cassels, J. D.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Chapman, Sir S.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Christle, J. A.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Clarry, Reginald George
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Clayton, G. C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Loder, J. de V.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Looker, Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lougher, Lewis
Waddington, R.


Cope, Major William
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Couper, J. B.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Crott, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacIntyre, Ian
Watts, Dr. T.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macmillan, Captain H.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wiggins, William Martin


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Dixey, A. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Drewe, C.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Withers, John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Wolmer, Viscount


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ford, Sir P. J.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Worthington- Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wragg, Herbert


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Nuttall, Ellis



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oakley, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pennefather, Sir John
Captain Margesson and Captain


Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 138 of Army Act.)

In Section one hundred and thirty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to penal stoppages from the ordinary pay of soldiers), at the end of the proviso there shall be added—

(d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant, penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted.—[Mr. Charleton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. CHARLETON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The right hon. Gentleman some time ago made a concession in regard to this matter, meeting us, I believe, 50/50. I am asking him to-night to do the generous thing, and, where allotments have been made to dependants, and deductions are made horn the soldier's pay, to allow the allotments not be interfered with. In the case, say, of parents living in a village, the disgrace which they feel on account of the punishment inflicted on their lad would be very terrible indeed in such a small community; and where the folk are poor, and have a job to make both ends meet, it is very hard upon them that their money should be cut off in this way, and the more so because, the poorer the home, the worse it will be felt. A parent in comfortable circumstances, even if the son has made some allotment out of his pay, would probably put it in the bank ready for him when he came out of the Army, but, where the parents are living on it, and are, perhaps, disabled through illness, or it may be that the parent is a widowed mother, they suffer severely. Further, it seems to me that, even from the Army point of view, if the dependants were permitted to take their allowance as usual, the boy would feel the hardship because his stoppages would continue for a longer period. I know that the argument has been used that this is only carrying out what takes place in civil life. I do not, however, regard that as a reason, but rather as an excuse. I do not think that, because we are unfortunate enough in civil life to suffer for other people's wrongdoing, we need carry that on into the Army. On financial grounds there is, of course, nothing in it. I do not know whether I am right in understanding—
the Financial Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—that fewer allotments are being made by soldiers as we get further away from the War period, but, if that be so, it would make it easier to give us what we ask. I do not think I need say more about the Clause; it is almost a hardy annual; but I would ask the Minister to do the generous thing now and accept it.

Mr. CONNOLLY: In putting forward this new Clause we are only asking the acceptance of a principle which is now well recognised in civil life. If a man gets into trouble and is sent to prison, the civil authorities see that his dependants do not want, and we are asking that the same principle should be applied in military life. There is another side to it as well as the monetary consideration. There is the anxiety and the sorrow brought about by the knowledge that a boy has got himself into trouble. Most of us are not afraid of the things we know. It is the things we do not know that we are afraid of, and the anxiety and sorrow caused to parents by the intimation that their son is in trouble is a matter that ought to be considered by the Department. I support the Clause.

Mr. KELLY: I hope the War Office this time will see their way to accepting this proposal. As the Regulation stands, it means that when a man has committed himself in some way, a penalty is imposed upon him, but those who are responsible for framing this Act have said they will not be content with penalising the soldier. They will also penalise the family by stopping the money the soldier has allotted out of his pay. So the family are to be penalised for an offence of which they are innocent. Is that a thing that the War Department can support in the year 1928? In civil life we penalise a man who is convicted as a wrongdoer, although those who are convicted are often proved later not to have been the wrongdoers, but we take some care not to penalise the rest of the family. In the Army that is reversed and, not satisfied with convicting the soldier, we must visit the penalty upon the wife, the mother, the children, or anyone for whom the allotment is made. I ask that this unjust method of dealing with the soldier's family shall be discontinued and that any money the soldier has allotted shall not be used for the purpose of pay-
ing part of the penalisation. It would be very interesting to the general public to read the language of this Section. I am not permitted to do it at this stage, but I am permitted to ask the Committee not to visit the punishment for an offence upon those who may be thousands of miles away from wherever it happened to be committed.

Mr. DUFF COOPER: The Committee would like to be informed exactly what was the concession referred to by the Mover of the Clause. It was a very considerable concession. By it a man who incurs stoppages in his pay, provided they are not too large to be paid off by deductions from his own pay in three months, is not subject to any deduction whatever from the allotment, and even if it is larger than that, only 50 per cent. of the maximum legal stoppage can be taken from the allotment, so that a certain proportion of the allotment continues to be paid. That is really a very considerable concession. The hon. Member himself said people are better off in the Army than in civil life, though the hon. Member for Newcastle East (Mr. Connolly) took the opposite view and seemed to think that in civil life whatever you did did not hurt your dependants and that when a man was sent to prison the State saw that the dependants were not allowed to want. I am not sure to what extent that is accurate, but I am certain, if a man is earning a very good income and commits some crime and goes to prison, the State does not see that his family is maintained in exactly the same condition

that it was before he committed the crime. The State could not possibly undertake such an obligation. The hon. Member for South Leeds (Mr. Charleton) said he understood allotments were decreasing. I have no information with regard to that point. So far as my in-information goes, the contrary is said to be the case, and allotments are tending to increase. I think the dependants of those who do wrong in Army life are considerably better off than the dependants of those who make mistakes in civil walks of life. Whatever wrong we do, we can never bear the whole brunt of it ourselves. It is always reflected on our dependants. As they are already better off, the Government cannot undertake to increase the concession.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is one point the hon. and gallant Gentleman rather overlooks, and that is that there are certain offences in military life for which the civilian is not punished at all. I am not criticising it, but it is the case. The Secretary of State for War seems to dissent, but there are certain things which one can do as a civilian which he could not do without punishment if he were a soldier. If it was right three years ago to give this concession, it is equally right in principle to safeguard the whole of the allotment money for the dependants. That is all we ask for, and I hope my hon. Friend will go to a Division.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 205.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[8.26 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Ammon, Charles George
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cavies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H.


Baker, Walter
Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Dunnico, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barnes, A.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Batey, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bondfield, Margaret
Gillett, George M.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Briant, Frank
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Broad, F. A.
Greenall, T.
Kelly, W. T.


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kennedy, T.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffith, F. Kingsley
Kirkwood, D.


Buchanan, G.
Groves, T.
Lansbury, George


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, T. W.
Lawrence, Susan


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lawson, John James


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, F.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, George D.
Lowth, T.


Compton, Joseph
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lunn, William


Connolly, M.
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sexton, James
Viant, S. P.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wallhead, Richard C.


March, S.
Shiels, O. Drummond
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Murnin, H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Oliver, George Harold
Sitch, Charles H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Smillie, Robert
Welsh, J. C.


Paling, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J


Parkinson, John Align (Wigan)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Potts, John S.
Snail, Harry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Purcell, A. A.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.



Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Atkinson, C.
Guff, Sir Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nuttall, Ellis


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Oakley, T.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Penny, Frederick George


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Bennett, A. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perring, Sir William George


Bethel, A.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hamilton, Sir George
Pilcher, G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Honnessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hills, Major John Waller
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Ropner, Major L.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Rye, F. G.


Burman, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hume, Sir G. H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Huntingfield, Lord
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cassels, J. D.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
James Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Savery, S. S.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Lt.-Col.A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Clarry, Reginald George
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Smithers, Waldron


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Knox, Sir Alfred
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Lamb, J. Q.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Cope, Major William
Long, Major Eric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Cooper, J. B.
Looker, Herbert William
Storry-Deans, R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lougher, Lewis
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tasker, R. Inigo


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Thom. Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dalkeith, Earl of
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
MacIntyre, Ian
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
McLean, Major A.
Tinne, J. A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macmillan, Captain H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Drawe, C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Malone, Major P. B.
Waddington, R.


England, Colonel A.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Margesson, Captain D
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ford, Sir P. J.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)




Watts, Dr. T.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wragg, Herbert


Wells, S. R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-
Withers, John James



Wiggins, William Martin
Wolmer, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.
Captain Viscount Curzon and Captain


Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Wallace.


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.



Question put, and agreed to.

First, Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE (SITES) (Re-committed) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to acquire lands.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee, if I remind hon. Members that this Bill is just the ordinary Post Office Sites Bill mainly to acquire certain lands by arbitration and to obtain certain easements, and that it has been to a Select Committee of this House where it has been very carefully examined. The Select Committee have reported unanimously in favour of it. They have made one or two drafting Amendments, but they are only drafting Amendments. This Bill is entirely in common form almost year after year, and in its machinery the same as the Bill we passed last year and the year before. Therefore, I hope hon. Members will agree to its passage tonight. Of course, if there is any point on which any hon. Member desires detailed information, I shall be only too glad to do my best to supply it.

CLAUSE 2.—(Power to make subway.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Major HILLS: This Clause empowers the Postmaster-General to construct a subway under Mount Street Gardens. Mount Street Gardens form an open space and are very much appreciated as such. They contain very fine trees, very fine specimens of timber, and I should
like to know that in the construction of the subway nothing is to be done to spoil the amenities of these gardens, for although they are quite close to Hyde Park and in a district well supplied with open spaces, they are extremely popular. If the Noble Lord would go there any afternoon in spring or summer he would see the gardens almost crowded. Another interesting feature of Mount Street Gardens is the fact that there is a very varied bird population there. For some reason, birds which come to London appear to prefer these gardens in Mount Street to the wider area of Hyde Park. Therefore, I hope that nothing will be done to spoil the amenities of the gardens

Viscount WOLMER: I can reassure my hon. and gallant Friend on that point. All that we are seeking to do is to get permission to run a subway under this disused burial ground. The subway will be not less than 16 feet below the surface of the ground. The surface of the ground will not be disturbed at all during the operations, and I do not think the roots of the trees will be affected in any way. The Westminster City Council have taken a very keen interest in this matter, and the Post Office has been in close touch with them over it. At their request we have inserted a Clause in the Bill during the Select Committee stage, Clause 7 (3) of which reads:
At least one month before commencing the construction of the subway the Postmaster-General shall submit to the Council plans, drawings, sections and specifications describing the position and manner in which and the level at which the subway is proposed to be constructed and in constructing the subway shall comply with the reasonable requirements of the Council.
My hon. and gallant Friend knows the Westminster City Council, and he may be sure that they will insist, and we will agree, that we shall do nothing that will inflict serious injury on any important timber or open space.

Clauses 3 (Power to deviate), 4 (Use of subway and application of Telegraph Acts, 1863 to 1926), 5 (Incorporation of
Lands Clauses Acts), 6 (Restriction on. taking surface of certain property and power to require owners to grant easements only), 7 (For protection of Westminster City Council), 8 (Compensation in case of recently altered buildings), 9 (Power to enter lands for purpose of surveying), 10 (Power to erect buildings and form roads), 11 (Power to make agreements with local authorities), 12 (Correction, of errors in deposited plans or books of reference), 13 (As to taking parts of certain properties), 14 (Land tax), 15 (Power to erect buildings on land at Leeds), 16 (Removal of human remains), and 17 (Short title and interpretation) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PETROLEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 5, page 6, line 13, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate.
In the Committee stage of this Bill a new Clause was inserted, which is now Clause 5, giving power to make regulations to control the erection of petrol pumps from the point of view of protecting, the amenities of the countryside. We find it necessary in order to make the matter quite clear that there should be a short Scottish Application Clause dealing with two short points. One point is merely a question of the difference of the spelling of burgh in Scotland and borough in England, and the other point refers to the different incidence of rating in Scotland as compared with England. Whereas in England, as I understand, occupiers only are rated, in Scotland it is quite a familiar procedure in regard to the majority of the rates, that one-half fall on the occupiers and one-half on the owners. Therefore, it was necessary to have an Application Clause in regard to that matter to make sure that the charge should fall upon the ordinary general
ratepayer. As that affects a rating charge, it was an Amendment which could not competently be made upon the Report stage. Therefore, formally, I ask the House to assent to a recommittal of the Bill for the sole purpose of inserting the Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The Lord Advocate says that there is a difference in the manner of rating in England and Scotland. I would like to be perfectly clear on the matter. He said that in England it was only the landlord who was rated.

The LORD ADVOCATE: No, the occupier.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Not the landlord, whereas in Scotland the occupier and the landlord are rated equally. I would like the point made perfectly clear before we proceed further. I want to know exactly how we stand so far as Scotland is concerned in regard to the procedure in rating.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I cannot speak again except by leave of the House. The point is that in England the rate is entirely on occupiers, and therefore there is no reason to make any special reference to the matter in the Clause. In Scotland the majority of the rates in town and country are half on owners and half on occupiers, and it is necessary to make special provision for Scotland.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 5.—(By-laws as to petroleum filling stations.>)

Amendment made: In page 6, line 13, insert the words:
(9) In the application of this Section to Scotland the expression 'borough' shall mean 'burgh,' and any expenses incurred by a county or town council under this Section shall be defrayed out of such rate leviable by the council and payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportion as the council may determine."—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of 34 & 35 Vict., c. 105, s. 15; as regards Scotland.)

Section fifteen of the Petroleum Act, 1871, shall, in so far as it relates to Scotland, cease to have effect, and the following provisions shall apply to the prosecution of any offence or the recovery of any penalty (in which expression any money or expenses directed to be recovered as penalties are included) under the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1926, or under this Act in Scotland:

(1) Any prosecution for an offence, or any proceedings for recovery of a penalty, may, where the offence involves a fine for every day on which the offence occurs or continues, or where the maximum penalty which may be imposed or awarded does not exceed fifty pounds, be brought in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, and any other offence and any other penalty may be prosecuted or recovered on conviction on indictment;
(2) The expression "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" shall have the like meaning as in the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts, provided that no Court of Summary Jurisdiction, other than the Sheriff Court, shall have jurisdiction in any prosecution or proceedings where the maximum penalty which may be imposed or awarded exceeds twenty pounds;
(3) Any petroleum, petroleum spirit, or other substance, or thing ordered by a Court to be forfeited may be sold or otherwise disposed of in such manner as the Court shall direct;
(4) Any penalty recovered and the proceeds of any forfeiture sold shall be paid to the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer Where the Court is the Sheriff Court, to the county clerk where the Court is the justice of the peace Court, and to the treasurer of the burgh where the Court is the burgh or police Court.—[The Lord Advocate.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The Act of 1871 has been amended in certain particulars by later Acts, but Section 15, which provides for the method of recovering and enforcement of penalties in Scotland and England, is somewhat out of date and vague in certain respects. In order to get the matter in good form in view of the Consolidation Bill, which I understand is to follow this Measure, I thought it right to bring the Act of 1871 up-to-date, and, if the House will give me their attention for just a few moments, I will tell them the exact differences in the Bill
from Section 15 of the original Act. Under the Clause which I am now moving, there is no substantial departure from the old law except in three points. In the first place, under the new provisions, the Police and Justices of the Peace Court will have jurisdiction as they have under the 1871 Act—I am talking of Scotland only—but in all other cases triable on summary jurisdiction the Sheriff Court will be the competent Court. Under the Act of 1871, the limit of summary jurisdiction for any of these Summary Courts was £50. I propose in order to bring it into accordance with the present scales of jurisdiction that the Police and Justices of the Peace Court jurisdiction should be limited to fines of £20 and that all cases involving a larger sum should be triable by the Sheriff Court.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the Court which is given jurisdiction for offences involving higher fines than £20. Normally, the Justices of the Peace Court is even more limited in the amount of its jurisdiction. In the second place, under Section 15 of the Act of 1871 where the penalty exceeds £50—which we have left as the limit for summary jurisdiction—there was a provision that there may be recovery and enforcement
in the same manner in which any penalty due to Her Majesty under any Act of Parliament may be recovered and enforced.
I confess frankly that I should not like to be asked a question as to what are the various methods in which
any penalty due to Her Majesty under any Act of Parliament may be recovered and enforced.
It seems vague and indefinite, and it would be much more satisfactory to provide that anything which is not within summary jurisdiction should be triable by indictment, which is the ordinary provision of the criminal law. That is the second change. The only other divergence is that under the revised Clause which I am now moving we propose to limit the right to prosecute to the Public Prosecutor. Under the Act of 1871, there was included as having the right to prosecute
an officer authorised by a harbour or local authority.
The whole tendency and development of the law in Scotland has been that the
Public Prosecutor is the most satisfactory method, and it will be consistent with our procedure that matters such as this should be dealt with by the Public Prosecutor and not by
an officer authorised by a harbour or local authority.
That is the third variation to Section 15 of the Act of 1871 which we propose. With this explanation, I hope that the House will accept the Clause.

Mr. HARDIE: I should just like to ask one question in order to be quite clear on one point. Does it mean that the officers who have control of petroleum in a city will be the informers of the Public Prosecutor?

The LORD ADVOCATE: They will be the informers in the ordinary way, but the information will come from the inspectors.

Mr. HARDIE: Supposing you have 10 or 15 inspectors, will they all be able to give information, or will it come from one of their number?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is part of the administration of the Act.

Clause added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Repeal and re-enactment with amendments of 59 & 60 Vict. c. 36. s. 5.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out the words "ships, boats," and to insert instead thereof the words "motor boats."
The object of this Amendment is to meet, to a certain extent, the views of dock and harbour authorities and railway companies associations. Under the ordinary law, a man who owns a motor car is allowed to keep a certain amount of petrol without a licence. He can keep 60 gallons of petrol in his store, and it is not necessary for him to take out a licence; but at the present time the man who owns a motor boat and who desires to keep a store of petrol has to take out a licence. There is no provision in any Act which gives the owner of a motor boat the same right as the owner of a motor car to keep up to 60 gallons of petrol. As a matter of fact, the provisions of the law at the present time are
more honoured in the breach than in their observance, and I am afraid that a few motor boat owners have been in the habit of keeping 10 or 15 gallons of petrol without getting a licence. I propose by this Amendment to bring the law in regard to motor boats into line with the law as regards motor cars. We are proposing to allow the owner of a motor boat to keep the same number of gallons of petrol as the owner of a motor car.
There is no danger in anyone keeping this small amount of petrol for a motor car, and there is still less likelihood of danger from anyone keeping petrol on the shore near the place where a motor boat is stationed. The words "ships, boats" were perhaps too far-reaching. In order to show that we meant only that the man who owns a boat propelled by petrol should be allowed to keep this amount of petroleum, I am proposing to alter the Clause in accordance with the Amendment. This change will go a long way to meet the views of the harbour authorities. I had a letter this morning from the Secretary of the Dock and Harbour Authorities saying that the Amendment was an improvement as it limited the Clause, but it is only fair to add that the letter states that the Amendment does not go as far as the harbour authorities wish. I see that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) has on the Paper another Amendment on the subject, and I will deal with that when it arises. Meantime T hone that the House will allow this Amendment to be made, as it is an improvement of the Bill.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: Do I understand that the Amendment on the Paper in my name will be in order, even if the present Amendment is passed? Otherwise I would wish to say a word on the present Amendment. My Amendment is of very much wider significance than that dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not proposing to ask that my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment should be ruled out of order.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): I see no reason why the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member should not be moved later.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, at the end, to insert the words:
(5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the keeping or use of petroleum spirit within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the slight but definite improvement which is made in the Clause by the Amendment which has just been carried. But really the question of the nature of the vessel which is allowed to store 60 gallons of petrol without a licence is a very small part indeed of the larger question of the danger which dock and harbour authorities foresee. We are not contemplating the man with a private motor boathouse at the side of a natural harbour, or something of that kind. We are contemplating places like Southampton Docks. What we are seriously afraid of is that, unless some special provision is made for dealing with docks and harbours, there will be serious danger not only to the property of a dock authority, but to the vessels that lie in the docks and to the goods of many kinds and great value that continually pass through or are stored within the bounds of the harbour. It has been found in the past that there is need for special precaution on dock properties. Their very nature increases the danger. They consist to a very large extent of timber structures and frequently stand upon timber piles. The fact that the harbours include stretches of water that are either totally or partially enclosed, adds enormously to the dangers from petrol. A comparatively small quantity of burning petrol on the surface of the water inside a dock might in a very short time cause damage running into millions.
9.0 p.m.
Take the case of Southampton again. I quote it as an example, though what applies to Southampton applies to every great harbour in the country, and I mention it only because I know it best. You might have a small launch going to fill up with a few gallons of petrol which is kept under this Bill without a licence within the dock premises. The petrol is carelessly handled and a fire occurs. It might involve half-a-dozen great Atlantic liners, to say nothing of cargoes of untold value. For these reasons I think that some very special provision should be made for dock premises. In the past the dock autho-
rities have been the authorities for the purposes of the Petroleum Acts. I do not think there is any desire to retain that provision, if there are special regulations made by the Home Secretary's Department in consultation with the dock authorities; but we do press that it is in the interest of the public safety and of the shipping of the country that there should be special regulations governing, not the use of petrol on launches, but the storage of petrol for the purposes of the launches within the area of any dock. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see his way to receive my Amendment with sympathy, and that he will accept it if not in form at least in spirit.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment. I need not add anything to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has moved it. What is true of Southampton is true of Leith and other ports, and the case has been admirably put. The issue is a much wider one than that admitted by the Home Secretary in his speech.

Mr. HARDIE: I wish to draw attention to what took place in a Glasgow harbour not many year ago. It was one of the inside harbours on the Tradeston side. The piers were built on 12 by 12 beams that had been treated with a certain preservative of a highly inflammable nature. The escape of a little petrol and a match thrown carelessly about not only destroyed the harbour and buildings, but destroyed a great deal of property adjoining. Burning petrol cannot be dealt with by ordinary fire brigade methods. Water is no good in dealing with it, and, in fact, by the use of a hose you may easily spread a fire of this kind. People may think that it is difficult to have a fire so near the water's edge, but the reason is that when the petrol is ignited it becomes a gas and is blown by the wind and when it is carried against the woodwork at the edge of the water, and gets a grip there, then the wind which has blown it there spreads it all over the woodwork.
Since this Bill first came from another place I have opposed it on 25 nights, and I am still trying to get it put into some kind of shape. I still think that it does not meet the situation at all. Some distinction seems to be drawn between the case of a goods station and the case of a harbour. Is there any reason for doing that? Under the present method a sign has to be put on the ship to show that
it is carrying this stuff, and we lay down certain Regulations about going into the harbour and unloading and so forth, and then we come to the real danger. The handling of petrol differs from the handling of any other class of goods, especially in connection with shipping. I watched a ship coming into the docks at Hull not long ago loaded with petrol. It was half-past 10 o'clock at night, and the signal was given that she was carrying petrol. She had to come into a certain dock and then was transferred into a lock, and from that lock to the quay, and then the men proceeded to unload her. It was quite clear to me that what was taking place there was of a highly dangerous character. Anything at all could take place in that darkness, and surrounding the place were sheds full of valuable goods.
When it comes to the real question of safety what we want instead of all these amending footling provisions is to have a special quay or a special harbour which will deal exclusively with all material of this kind. Why should the ordinary harbour have this danger brought into it by any ships? There is no reason why we should not have special quays or jetties, especially in this country where we are not short of sea-frontage. The question of expense does not enter into the matter, because, if an accident takes place involving a large fire, the necessary replacements would be 10 times what it would cost to put up a special quay or jetty in a place like Hull, where this material could be kept quite apart from all other goods.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I think the hon. Member will agree with me that the ship to which he refers was unloading petroleum and not petrol.

Mr. HARDIE: They are on the same lines. If the hon. and gallant Member wants me to do so, I can give a technical disquisition to show that petroleum is just as dangerous under these conditions as petrol.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: The hon. Member did mention petrol.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, I did, and they had the petrol sign on that ship. I did not go there for nothing. I would like the Home Secretary to say whether his advisers have ever suggested to him that the proper way of dealing with this mat-
ter is to have a harbour or jetty where this material can be handled quite apart from general merchandise.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The proposal of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) goes further than his speech. His Amendment reads:
Nothing in this Section shall affect the keeping or use of petroleum spirit within the jurisdiction of a harbour authority.
That means, of course, that any motor vessel coming into Southampton Harbour, for instance, would be compelled to get rid of its petrol.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: No, but it must comply with the conditions imposed by the harbour authority dealing with this matter.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The object of the Clause is to enable the owner of a motor boat to keep a store of petrol, not exceeding 60 gallons, somewhere on the shore at a convenient place near where his motor boat is laid up, but any motor boat coming into harbour, for the purpose of mooring at its accustomed place, would come into collision with the Amendment. The words "keeping or use" would really prevent any motor boat coming into the jurisdiction of any harbour authority carrying petrol. My hon. and gallant Friend however in his speech used the words "harbour premises." There I think he is quite right. But this matter is absolutely within the power of a harbour authority at the present moment. I have no power and no power is given by this Clause, to enable a man to store motor spirit on my hon. and gallant Friend's premises, or on the premises of a harbour authority. I cannot do so any more than I can authorise the owner of a motor car to keep 60 gallons of petrol on somebody else's land. He can only keep it on his own land. I am not taking away any of the powers of the harbour authorities. These are under the Petroleum Act of 1871 which gives them very full powers.
Every harbour authority shall frame and submit for confirmation to the Board of Trade by-laws for regulating the place or places at which ships carrying petroleum to which this Act applies are to be moored in the harbour over which that authority has jurisdiction and are to land their cargoes, etc.
The powers of controlling and regulating the carrying of petroleum into the
harbour will remain just as they are to-day. All that I say is that a motor boat may have its own store of petrol in its own garage on shore, exactly in the same way as my hon. Friend or I may have our own store of petrol in our own garage in our own private house. I have had a good deal of correspondence with the dock and harbour authorities, and the Amendment which I have put down admittedly goes a long way to meet their views. I am not likely to make a lot of stupid Regulations, and if I did, they would be ultra vires. I cannot make them outside the Act of Parliament of 1871, which still remains in force. All the powers of dock and harbour authorities within their own jurisdiction remain as they were, and I think they will have the same power and authority for prescribing how petroleum is to be brought into the harbour in ships, how it is to be unloaded, where it is to be unloaded, and where it is to be stored. The only point is that a small motor boat carrying a small lot of petrol for its own use may come into that harbour, and the owner may keep 60 gallons of petrol, not on harbour premises at all, but if he has any land on the shore of the harbour, within the jurisdiction of the harbour authority, he may keep it on his own premises, in the same way as I can keep petrol for my motor car in my own garage. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press the Amendment and will see that we have gone as far as we can do in this matter.

Mr. GOSLING: Speaking as a member of the Port of London Authority, I understood a few weeks ago that the Bill was the kind of Bill that would make progress here without Amendment. But this Amendment has rather scared me. It may be that there is nothing in it, but I am not quite sure, and I do not know that the Port of London Authority have considered the Amendment of the Home Secretary. They have considered the Bill, but I think this Amendment has only come to light since the Recess.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I explain?

Mr. GOSLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me a moment? The other point I want to put is this: I quite
understand that, if a motor boat comes into a harbour, she is subject to the regulations of the harbour authority, even to the extent of emptying out all her petrol if they thought it was dangerous, but this Amendment, it seems to me, will give the right to each motor boat to store for itself 60 gallons a petrol. Now there are some places along the riverside where there are very many motor boats, and if you multiply the number of those boats by 60, you will have a great many gallons of petrol stored in those places; and some of those places where the motor boats lie are certainly not fit for petrol to be stored in any large amount. Take, for instance, boat houses—which are not built for the storing of petrol, but for the covering of boats, a very different thing—in very thickly-populated places along the river banks in the upper reaches. I am not sure whether the local authority would have the right to supervise them before that amount of petrol was allowed to be stored in them. Otherwise, I am afraid it would be running a rather considerable risk.
I only mention it because I did not like to allow an Amendment like this to go through without saying what was in my mind, because I feel some responsibility in the matter. If the Home Secretary has made it quite clear and has authority from others responsible to say so, that ends the matter, but knowing what the London County Council have been doing lately for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the public against petrol fire, I thought I had better speak. The difficulty is that there is no means of extinguishing it. Nothing that we know of at present will extinguish it, and if you have got a number of 60 gallons in one shed, which is not at all a fit place in which to put petrol, you are running a very considerable risk.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I, by leave of the House, say a word in reply to the hon. Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Gosling), who, as a member of the Port of London Authority, is an authority on this question? If he will look at the Bill, he will see that it is not a Bill which authorises Tom, Dick, or Harry at their own sweet will to keep 60 gallons of petrol. It authorises me, the Secretary of State, to make regulations for the
keeping of petrol which will apply to the owner of a motor boat, exactly in the same way as I make regulations to apply to the owner of a motor car. He does not think, for instance, that he himself may own a motor car and go and stick 60 gallons of petrol in a wood shed. The Secretary of State has authority to make regulations for the keeping of motor spirit by anybody who wants to keep it, and exactly in the same way, if the House gives me authority, I am going to make regulations to enable me to decide what the conditions are under which a man may keep motor spirit for his motor boat. Those regulations have been very fully considered. Very frequently I am dealing with the matter, particularly on the subject of fire, with my authorities and my staff in charge of it, and exactly the same care that is given to regulations for the keeping of petrol for motor cars will be given to regulations for those who desire to keep it for motor boats. There is not the slightest chance of our making regulations to enable a lot of motor boat people to put 60 gallons of petrol one after another in a wood shed or anything of that kind. I am sure the House will accept it from me that the Home Office will deal with these regulations in the same way as they have done in regard to petrol for motor cars in the past.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance that neither this Clause nor his regulations will interfere with the regulations made by the harbour authorities for the safety of their premises and the vessels lying therein, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Regulations as to classes of petroleum likely to be dangerous or injurious to health.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARDIE:

In page 3, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) prohibiting the sale or use of petroleum spirit so dangerous or injurious to health that precautions for the protection of persons employed or engaged in handling or using such petroleum spirit are impracticable.

Mr. HARDIE: This Amendment, which I desire to move, deals with the question
of tetra-ethyl. That may seem coming back to an old cry, but they say that the price of safety is that you are continually fighting for it. The handling of this spirit is not so well known in this country as it is in America, and dealing with certain technical reports from the medical side, dealing with workers employed in places where they make and handle it, there are some quite serious cases that have been brought before the two bodies that have reported. What I am moving this Amendment for is to get the power necessary to deal with any form of control where that—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think I can save the hon. Member's time if I say that I will accept his Amendment if he will agree to the insertion of the words "which he may by order declare to be," so that it will read:
(c) prohibiting the sale or use of petroleum spirit which he may by order declare to be so dangerous,
and so on. The House will understand that I am not admitting, nor would the hon. Member desire me to admit that there is in fact a spirit known to be so injurious. I would only say that we know of a particular spirit which is at the moment the subject of inquiry, and if, after that inquiry—it is purely hypothetical—the Secretary of State should declare that particular spirit to be injurious, then the hon. Member's Amendment would usefully come in.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) prohibiting the sale or use of petroleum spirit which he may by Order declare to be so dangerous or injurious to health that precautions for the protection of persons employed or engaged in handling or using such petroleum spirit are impracticable.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(By-laws as to petroleum filling stations.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, after the word "public," to insert the words
and preventing the deterioration or injurious affection of the amenities of any part of their area.
This is practically on the same lines as the previous Amendment, but instead of dealing with the question of health direct, we seek to insert these words. This is to deal with the question of fumes which travel underground and not in the air. We find them in places that are adjacent to petroleum spirit which is kept in bulk. As a matter of fact, wherever you get your ordinary roadside petroleum station, the practice is to sink two oil tanks into the ground and fill them up. When the ground is nicely made up, they think they have made them tight because they are underground, but it is very soon discovered that they are not tight. There was one case which occurred in Scotland recently where the leak was so bad that it entered the main sewage drain. What happened was that in all the pockets in that drain there was a collection of petrol fumes. It was only by sheer accident that it was discovered in time, for the moment it becomes alight at one point, it goes on making gas. That was found out by accident, but in other cases in the country where a leak takes place without getting into the drains, it gets into the fields, and the result is very serious for crops. This Amendment is to try to get protection against such things taking place.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am afraid the hon. Member is making rather too large a demand upon the House. I am afraid I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment. It is an entirely new proposal which we are incorporating into an Act of Parliament. We are giving control to local authorities for the purpose of dealing with petrol stations but we are proposing to give that control for certain reasons and on certain conditions for the purpose of preserving the amenities of rural scenery or places of beauty or historic interest. I think we have got to be a little careful how we proceed in this matter. We have allowed petrol stations to be erected very largely all over the country. They are, I admit, horribly ugly. I agree that where you have beautiful rural scenery and places of historic interest, it is highly desirable that we should get some means of preventing their wholesale multiplication.
As far as I can see, public opinion at large is very much in favour of that. This Bill has been very carefully drawn, but it limits the powers of the by-law making authorities to stop the multiplication of these petrol stations or to limit their ugliness, to places where they will interfere with the amenities of rural scenery or places of beauty or historic interest.
The hon. Member now wants to go a great deal further, and to bring in all town and country districts where, he says, there may be crops injured by the fumes. I am afraid I should want a great deal more valuable information—not that I do not for one moment accept his knowledge—and information of a practical character as to any injury which is being caused, or is likely to be caused, to such districts by petrol stations being erected on the road side. We have got to remember that motoring is increasing, and is bound increase as the years roll on. The petrol filling stations have filled a very practical want; otherwise they would not have multiplied as they have done. Petrol stations are not built for amusement, but because they make money, and motorists want to get their spirit. The hon. Member is proposing to go a great deal too far, and I hope the House will agree with me, at all events in the first instance, that this is a new proposal in legislation which we have not tried before, and that we ought to go cautiously. We have gone as far as we can in giving powers to deal with the erection of petrol stations where it will preserve the amenities of rural scenery, places of beauty or historic interest. This Amendment covers a great deal more, and I ask the House and the hon. Member to be content with the Bill as it stands which goes a good long way, and is a great improvement, on the existing law.

Mr. HARDIE: Has the right hon. Gentleman or his party received any report with regard to the storing of petrol at Ardrossan or Salthills and its effects along the sea coast? I am not speaking of the population, but of summer visitors to those places.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I can say that I have not had any. The only report I had last year in regard to a Scottish watering place was that a dead
whale had arrived, and had stunk the the place out.

Mr. GILLETT: Personally, I very much regret the Home Secretary has limited the Bill to this extent, because I was hoping when I saw the Bill that it was going to tackle some of the eyesores we see all along the roads not only in the country but in the suburbs of London. Now I find that it is to refer entirely to parts of the country that do not in any way affect London. When you have a new industry coming into being, the sooner you tackle problems of this kind the better it is, and, therefore, the argument of the Home Secretary for only proposing to deal with a small part of the problem is a mistaken one. It would have been far better to have settled the whole problem at once. If you go to the suburbs of London and look at some of the centralised places, these petrol stations are some of the worst eyesores. I agree that they vie with the advertisement in regard to making places almost a public eyesore, but I do hope some day the House will deal with the advertisement problem. Meanwhile, I hope the Home Secretary is going to start, at any rate, with these stations. Now we are told, as far as London is concerned, that this Bill will be of no use whatever.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, there are lots of places of historical interest in London. One could not build a petrol station near Westminster Abbey or the Tower of London.

Mr. GILLETT: For practical purposes, the Home Secretary knows perfectly well it would be almost impossible to store it in the positions he mentions. Broadly speaking, I venture to assert this Bill is of no use whatever to London, and does not in any way remove the evil of which we complain. I very much hope my hon. Friend will adhere to his Amendment in order that the House may have the opportunity of saying that something should be done to try to remove what is becoming a perfect eyesore in many parts of London.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House proceeded to a Division.

There being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LOOKER: "In page 4, line 31, after the word 'Borough' to insert the words or urban district.'"

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Amendment, under Standing Order No. 41, is not in order.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask why my Amendment is out of order under Standing Order No. 41?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will remember that there was an Instruction to the Committee to deal with this particular point, and as it was necessary, in order to enable the Committee to deal with that point, it comes under this Standing Order, which says:
Upon the Report stage of any Bill no Amendment may be proposed which could not have been proposed in Committee without an instruction from the House.
Obviously, this needed an Instruction from the House and comes under this Standing Order. The Committee having dealt with it, the actual Instruction comes to an end.

Mr. LOOKER: Am I right in assuming that, where there is an Instruction to a Committee which is carried out by an Amendment being put into the Bill, under no circumstances is it possible to have an Amendment on report? As I read Standing Order No. 41, with great respect to your decision, it says this:
Upon the Report stage of any Bill no Amendment may be proposed which could not have been proposed in Committee without an instruction from the House.
I am not proposing to make an Amendment now which could not be proposed without an Instruction. I am proposing to make the Amendment pursuant to the Instruction that was given. I submit that under this particular Order, it is competent to move an Amendment oh Report to an Amendment made pursuant to an Instruction in Committee, especially when the words which are sought to be added on Report are quite consonant with the words of the Instruction.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The words of the Standing Order are perfectly clear, that in order to deal with this it is necessary to have the Instruction to deal with it in Committee. Therefore, this cannot be moved on Report, because it
was a question which needed an Instruction to the Committee to deal with.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Further to that point of order: May I ask whether the exact change that took place in the Bill in Committee was intimated to the House before the Instruction was given, whether the actual change that took place in Committee was embodied in the Instruction when the Instruction was given for a change to be made?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is clear that, in order for the Committee to deal with it, it is necessary for the Instruction of the House to be given to the Committee to deal with it, and, having dealt with it, the Instruction comes to an end.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move in page 5, line 2, after the word "purposes," to insert the words:
a council shall not be entitled to require any alterations which would impose additional expense on the owner or occupier of a petroleum filling station established at the time of the making of the bye-laws except on the condition that such expense shall be borne by the said council, and.
Everybody agrees on both sides of the House that, during the past few years, most unsightly petrol-filling stations have sprung up, not only in the towns, but, where they are very much more unsightly, in the country, and it is high time that there should be some definite regulations for controlling the erection of these stations. The object of this Amendment is to prevent injustice, so far as is possible, being done to small men who have invested in many cases not only their capital, but their credit, in the erection of these petrol-filling stations. In the majority of cases, especially in the country, these petrol stations are owned by small men. It is not the same in the country as it is in the large towns, or even in the suburbs, where these stations are owned, or at any rate financed, by the big oil companies. In the country, most of these stations are owned by men who have sunk their capital in their erection. It is true that in the majority of cases they have either mortgaged their plant or received a loan from one of the big oil companies, but that will not prevent them, in the event of their failing to meet their engagements or their instalments from having their business foreclosed and being for all intents and purposes ruined.
This Amendment is moved to provide that, in the event of the county council deciding that a station is unsightly and should be done away with, compensation is to be given to the owner, or the alterations or improvements are to be done at the expense of the county council. This is not by any means an original suggestion. If it be found necessary, in the interests of public safety, that a wall which is erected on a blind corner should be done away with, or that a hedge should be cut down and a fence substituted, compensation is given to the owner of that wall or fence, or, failing that, the work is done for the owner. There is no great difference between that and the case of a man who has erected an unsightly filling station, because we must not forget that that station, before it was erected, had to be passed by the local building authority and by the local petroleum inspector, so that it complied in every respect with the law as it existed at the time when the station was erected. All I am asking in this Amendment is that legislation should not be made retrospective, but should deal entirely with stations erected in the future. In the event of the aesthetic sense of a county council being developed to such an extent that a petrol station must be altered, compensation ought to be given to the owner for the disturbance and for the additional cost put upon him.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment. I think it would be extremely hard if small men who had embarked their sole capital in the provision of these filling stations were compelled not only to undertake further expenditure within a short time afterwards, but had the expenditure which they have already laid out thrown away owing to the subsequent passing of bylaws which they had no reason to suppose would be imposed. At the time when they put up the stations they complied with all the existing requirements of the law, and had every reason to suppose they had done all that the community required of them, and to put upon them the obligation of having to spend further sums within a period of two years, or an even longer period, would be inequitable in the circumstances.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope the House will reject this Amendment, for two
reasons which I will briefly state. If I remember rightly, the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment tonight moved a similar Amendment in Committee upstairs. I would point out to him that if the Amendment were carried it would make this Clause ridiculous and absolutely inoperative. The hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) speaks of the hardships falling on small men, but I want to assure him that the owners of these petrol filling stations are not all small men, that a number of them are owned by large companies with a huge capital behind them. If a person spoils the amenities of rural scenery, and does it in the teeth of public opinion, the local authority is to have power under this Bill to require him to make an alteration in the design, but the hon. and gallant Member wants the local authority to compensate him. Let the House consider what that would mean. It would mean, in effect, that a local authority would never call upon anybody to make an alteration at all, because of the cost which would fall upon it.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: It could not spare the money.

Mr. DAVIES: As my hon. and gallant Friend says, it will not have the money with which to do it. I feel sure the House will have so much regard for the amenities of the rural scenery of our country that it will reject the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member, which would protect a man who has offended those amenities by setting up a petrol-pump station against the will of the public in that neighbourhood.

Captain WATERHOUSE: I rise to support the Amendment. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has said that they are not all small people who own these petrol filling stations, but that some of them are large companies, with plenty of capital. Is the fact that they are large companies any reason why they should be made to pay? Are they to be made to find the money while it is being pleaded that county councils cannot find the money? In this House we cannot pass laws to lay upon private individuals or upon companies' responsibilities which did not exist at the time when they erected these stations. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about removing a nuisance?"] They are not creating a nuisance. Those people have erected
something which was for the public service. They put up the pumps in those places in order to supply a public need, and now they will find out that in supplying that need they have, possibly, infringed a provision in an Act which we are only now proposing to pass. That is retrospective legislation of the worst kind, and I shall go into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I desire to reinforce the opposition which has been offered to this Amendment by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), and I sincerely trust the Home Secretary will not give way and accept it. All who have erected these filling stations have erected them, probably, in the teeth of the opposition of the county council. [Interruption.] I have been a member of the Glamorgan County Council—

Mr. E. BROWN: You cannot speak for all of them.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I am not speaking for Leith, I would not care to speak for Scotland, but I am speaking for one of the largest industrial counties in Great Britain, and that is the county of Glamorgan. I know the difficulties we have had with these people in the past, and I think the Clause as it now stands is generous enough to meet all those cases which will come within it. If they have erected these stations, then they are to be given two years or more in which to come into line with the requirements of those who are seeking to preserve the amenities of the district.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have only a word or two to say on this Amendment. I think the House ought to consider the rights of the public as well as the rights of individuals. Everybody has been talking about the abominable disfigurement of our country districts and places of historic interest by these petrol pumps. Only a few days ago I saw in the "Times" a letter from a well-known lady, Lady Oxford—I am sure this will appeal to the Liberal party—in which she said:
Had everyone combined out of malice to dispose of the fine London buildings, and disfigure the quiet beauty of the lanes, the villages, and the roads of England, they could not have been more successful.
Guy Dawber, who is the Vice-President of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and one of the most eminent
architects of the day, also wrote a letter to the "Times," m which he said:
Throughout the whole of England"—
I will call my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to this. It is not a mere question of public utility. These things might have been made just as useful as they are without being the abominable disfigurement they are. His letter says:
This condition of things is, unfortunately, not confined to London, for throughout the whole of England, on every side, we see wholesale desecration of its charm and beauty by the substitution of buildings out of harmony with their environment. There is no town or village, at any rate in the home counties that is not disfigured and artistically injured by the erection of commonplace and vulgar buildings which jar with their neighbours and offend the eye.
Surely they have a right to take that view, if this Amendment is accepted it would impose the expense of the alterations upon the local authorities, and you cannot expect the councils all over the country to pay for the cost of remodelling buildings. On the other hand, the cost of these alterations to the individual proprietors is not likely to be very heavy.
When this matter was discussed in Committee upstairs it was felt that it would not be right to pass a law sweeping out of existence all these stations, and it was decided to give the county councils powers to deal with any of these filling stations which they thought were unsightly. The owners of these filling stations have now had a run of two years and they know the kind of agitation that has been going on for some time. This Bill has been before Parliament for a long period. It will be another six months before the by-laws are made, and these individual proprietors will have another two years' grace after that. Consequently, they will be able to reap three years' profits on the filling stations before they can be called upon to make any alteration in the style of their buildings. Consequently, we are not doing any real injury to the community by saying to these owners, "We will give you a three years' run before ordering you to remove what is an eye-sore to the countryside." If a man erects anything that creates a bad smell which is injurious to health he can be compelled to remove it. If a man puts up anything else that is injurious to the community or dangerous,
he can be compelled to take it down. The people with whom we are dealing under this Bill have put up these erections wholesale all over the country, and they could certainly have been made much less objectionable. As they have chosen to put up erections which have spoiled the artistic beauty of the country scenery, and which have proved to be objectionable to the community, surely Parliament has a right to say that if a responsible authority like the county council makes by-laws dealing with this matter, and the Secretary of State approves of them; and if after that the county council considers that any particular pumping station comes within the terms of the by-laws, the county council should have the right to say to the owners: "You must take your petrol station away, or alter it so as to bring it into conformity with our by-laws." I think that is a healthy Conservative principle, and the Conservative party has always been in favour of the preservation of the artistic and rural amenities.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out the word "two" and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
10.0 p.m.
In the original draft of the Clause the period allowed for alterations was five years, but that was struck out in Committee and a period of two years was inserted. The object of this Amendment is to replace five years. After listening to the speeches made by the Home Secretary, one would imagine that along the roads of England the only unsightly objects were the petrol pumps. I cannot help thinking how inoffensive a petrol-filling station is when compared with the unsightly telegraph poles and wires which the Post Office authorities have erected all over the country. Nothing is said about the unsightly standards erected by electric power companies conveying power from one town to another. No one has suggested that the Post Office or these electric power companies should be compelled to place their wires and cables underground within a space of two years. The reason for this is that one is a Government Department and the other are powerful corporations. The owners of petrol
stations are an unorganised body of workers, and for this reason I think they require protection. It seems to me that it is most unfair to compel these small owners to make expensive alterations to their buildings, because in many cases that would only lead to bankruptcy.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment.
If the Home Secretary cannot accept five years, I hope that he will be willing to accept some intermediate period, such as three or four years.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I hope the House will reject this Amendment as well. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] If the Conservative party agrees, then I am quite willing to sit down.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 6.—(By-laws as to loading, conveyance and landing of petroleum, spirit in and upon canals.)

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that, before making; any such by-laws, the canal company shall consult the local authority empowered under the principal Act to grant petroleum spirit licences in the district in which the canal is situated.
I move this Amendment with the object of getting some kind of control in regard to this question. I am pleading for the rights of any city or town through which a canal may pass to have some say, through the local authority, as to what is going to be done. If there is to be loading or unloading at any of these points, why should local control cease when dealing with petrol although that control applies to almost anything else? If the local authority gets this power, it does not mean that we are going to prohibit any form of transport. All the Amendment seeks to do is to place in the hands of the local authority the power to grant licences in the district in which the canal is situated. One can see the great danger, if this Amendment is not accepted, that is going to occur in regard to carrying petroleum or petroleum spirit on the canals, because they will be able to make any port a port of call even against the wishes of the local authority. It may interfere with the question of fire insurance at certain points. If a local authority has big buildings at a landing stage on a canal,
they will be insured against fire, but, since the local authority does not store or handle petrol or petroleum, that risk will not be included in the policy. If, however, this Bill goes through as it is now, it will give powers to canal owners carrying petrol or petroleum to come and use any of these places, and, if a fire occurred, it would mean that, in the absence of insurance, the local authority would be the losers.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) would have risen to say that this also was an Amendment which ought not to be accepted, but, as he did not, it falls to my lot to do so. Clause 6 is simply a Clause to allow a canal company on whose canal petroleum barges are passing
to make by-laws regulating the loading, conveyance and landing of petroleum-spirit in and upon the canal under their jurisdiction";
and it is quite obvious that, if petrol or petroleum is carried along a canal, it is desirable for the safety of the traffic on that canal that the canal company should have this power. This Amendment asks that, before making such by-laws, the canal company shall consult the Local authorities through whose areas the canal passes. A canal of any size, however, passes through the areas of a whole series of local authorities, and the result of the Amendment, if it were agreed to, would be that, before the canal company could make these most necessary by-laws, ft would have to obtain the consent of all the local authorities through whose areas the canal passed. I submit to the House that it would make it impossible to work this Clause. Moreover, Sub-section (2) provides that no by-law shall be confirmed by the Minister of Transport until they have been published in draft, and the local authorities will have the power, as soon as a by-law proposed by a canal company is published in draft, to go to the Minister of Transport and put their objections, if they have any, before him, and he will consider those objections before he confirms the by-law or otherwise. The local authorities, therefore, are amply secured; but this Amendment, on account of the very great difficulty that there would be in getting canal companies by-laws passed if only one small
authority out of 20 or 30 declined to accept them, would make the whole of this provision for the safety of canal traffic of no avail. The amendment, therefore, is one which could not possibly

be accepted, and I hope the House will resist it.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 104; Noes, 206.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[10.10 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Scurr, John


Ammon, Charles George
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Bondfield, Margaret
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Snell, Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Sullivan, J.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Viant, S. P.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grundy, T. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Windsor, Watler


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben



Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hirst, G. H.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
A. Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Clarry, Reginald George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clayton, G. C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Atkinson, C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Collox, Major Wm. Philip
Hamilton, Sir George


Balniel, Lord
Cope, Major William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hartington, Marquess of


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian


Bennett, A. J.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Bethel, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major John Waller


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hilton, Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dawson, Sir Philip
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Drewe, C.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Briggs, J. Harold
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
England, Colonel A.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Huntingfield, Lord


Brown,Brig.-Gen.H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fenby, T. D.
Hurd, Percy A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fielden, E. B.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Burman, J. B.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Jephcott, A. R.


Campbell, E. T.
Frece, sir Walter de
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Carver, Major W. H.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cassels, J. D.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Goff, Sir Park
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gower, Sir Robert
Knox, Sir Alfred


Chapman, Sir S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Lamb, J. O.


Christie, J. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Long, Major Eric
Price, Major C. W. M.
Thompson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Looker, Herbert William
Raine, Sir Walter
Tinne, J. A.


Lougher, Lewis
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Raid, D. D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Rice, Sir Frederick
Waddington, R.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Richardson, Sir P. W.(Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macdonald, Capt. P. O. (I. of W.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Ropner, Major L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


MacIntyre, Ian
Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Warrender, Sir Victor


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rye, F. G.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Salmon, Major I.
Watts, Dr. T.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, S. R.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sandeman, N. Stewart
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Margesson, Captain D.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wiggins, William Martin


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sandon, Lord
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Savery, S. S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Shepperson, E. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Withers, John James


Nuttall, Ellis
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Viscount


Oakley, T.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, W. J.


Pennefather, Sir John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Penny, Frederick George
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Storry-Deans, R.
Wragg, Herbert


Perring, Sir William George
Styles, Captain H. W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid



Pilcher, G.
Tasker, R. Inigo
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Captain Viscount Curzon and


Preston, William
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Captain Bowyer.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) Section forty of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 (which makes provision as to the by-laws of canal companies), shall not aply to by-laws made under this Section.
This is purely a drafting Amendment which has been put down in the interests of the Ministry of Transport, to ensure that the power of making by-laws under the Act of 1888 does not extend to this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Minor Amendments.)

Amendment made:

In page 10, line 24, at the end, insert the words:

"Sec. 16 After the words 'harbour authority,' in each place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words canal company'"—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Sir V. HENDERSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: An Instruction apparently was given to the Committee
that a certain alteration should be made. The alteration that has been made was to make a change in our laws relating to local authorities which is the first of its kind since 1907. This Bill gives county councils and boroughs power to operate, but deprives urban district councils of the same power which has been granted to these authorities in almost every Bill passed during the last 30 or 40 years.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now dealing with something that is not in the Bill. That can be done on Second Reading, but not on Third Reading.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall most certainly endeavour to keep within your Ruling, Sir, but I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Bill for the first time since 1907 gives to a borough council a power that is denied to an urban district council. It gives a county council overriding power over urban district councils and deprives urban district councils of a power they have hitherto enjoyed, and, because merely to make by-laws is one thing but to see that they are carried out is another, it seems to me the overriding power of the county council ought not to have been given.
I have no desire to indulge in or to create a lengthy discussion, but, in view of the fact that two Amendments, which
were regarded as highly important from the urban district councils' point of view, have been ruled out of order today, we believe that we have no alternative but to intimate to the right hon. Gentleman that the opposition to the Bill as it now stands, with the omission referred to, is much stronger than appears on the surface. Hon. Gentlemen on his own benches had their names down to Amendments which have been ruled out of order, and I am convinced, could the Debate have gone on and the right hon. Gentleman had really understood the demand of the urban district councils to have equal authority with the borough councils, he would not have hesitated to accept the Amendments on the Order Paper. But if the right. hon. Gentleman will indicate that in another place he will repair the wrong, which, apparently, has crept into the Bill, I am sure that hon. Members on these benches will not stand in the way of the Bill, but will allow it an easy passage.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give satisfaction to the 800 urban district authorities who are said to be unfit to control all matters of this kind within their own borders. I hope that be will give sufficient comfort to them by stating that in another place he will take steps to see that, as has been the ease since 1907, except in the case of the Shops Act in 1912, the same power is granted to them as is granted to borough councils, 66 of whom have less than 5,000 population, 166 less than 10,000 population. While there are hundreds of urban district councils with more than 20,000 population, yet a power is given to the borough councils which is denied to the urban district councils. I hope he will inform us that if we give this Bill a Third Reading steps will be taken in another place to give the powers to urban district councils that are to he given to borough councils.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is a little difficult for me to argue a case which has been ruled out of Order. I can only tell the House that I have given a great deal of consideration to this Bill. I received this morning a very important deputation from the Urban District Councils Association, who used very strong language about county councils. I received an equally import-
ant deputation from the county councils, who used equally strong language. That is my difficulty. I only desire to get the best result. There is one point which I may put to the House without transgressing the rules of Order. In the Bill as it now stands, the authority is the county council which has the control of a very considerable area and will create very considerable uniformity with regard to this question of petrol pumps. Let me take the road between London and Brighton—50 miles of road. It passes through two county councils, three borough councils, and five urban district councils. Under the proposals in the Bill, you would have two sets of by-laws only dealing with petrol pumps on that road. You might say there might be a difference of opinion between the two county councils, but, at all events, they would only be two. Under the proposal of the hon. Member there would be ten different sets of by-laws dealing with the road between London and Brighton.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not true the right hon. Gentleman said, in reply to a previous Amendment, that it will be his duty to issue model by-laws immediately the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, and that he expects that the authorities will, more or less, adopt the model by-laws which he prepares?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We may hope that, but we have no power to enforce any particular form of by-laws. The Bill says that the county councils may frame certain by-laws. I want to do the best for the community as a whole. If there were 10 different kinds of by-laws existing on the route between London and Brighton, and between London and Bath 12 or 13 different sets of by-laws, it would be very undesirable. Not only would there be different sets of by-laws, but different methods of administration and different esthetic ideas of the local authorities all along the route. That would create very great confusion. I am not suggesting these points for the consideration of the House now, because the matter has been dealt with, but only to show the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that I have not overlooked the point which he has raised. I have given very full consideration to the remarks addressed to me by both deputations this afternoon. I have no feeling
one way or another, but my opinion is that in the interests of the community as a whole it would be better to leave this power in the hands of the county councils.

Mr. HARDIE: In the interests of art itself, would it not be an advantage to have the artistic expression of different authorities between London and Brighton? Would it not be a great advantage to find out the varied expressions of art in regard to petrol pumps in the different districts?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The variety might be charming, but perhaps a little too charming, if we had 12 different varieties in 50 miles. Hon. Members opposite and hon. Friends of mine on this side have not been able to fire off the speeches which they meant to fire off, on account of their Amendment having been ruled out of order, and if they so desire I should be very glad to meet a deputation of them and allow them to make their speeches to me. I will consider any point which they care to put before me. I cannot say more. The Clause in question has been passed. It is impossible to think that a Bill of this value to the community will be thrown
out on Third Reading merely because of a difference in regard to which set of local authorities shall have the right to make by-laws. We are all agreed that by-laws must be made. I hope the House will give the Bill a Third Reading, and if between now and the Bill going to another place there should be any real feeling on the matter I shall be glad to look into it further and to discuss it with my hon. Friends on either side of the House.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and particularly in view of the fact that he is willing to allow us to fire our speeches at him, I beg to withdraw my opposition.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Half after Ten o'Clock.